"»ἀρφ νῷ hone 4 
pr ae ae oe ke σ 


oe 
roe eae ok game Bama Red 
- : re orwe 


eer et 


Se νον νον 


ιν νιύίων σον.“ ὐσύνοον 
ἐσ σὴν 


here eT Tere eT 


<x 
Z 
=) 
ει: 
4 
[9] 
fey 
ἱ 9 
ΟἹ 
[3 
= 
— 
2) 
ῷ 
=] 
am 
a 
aa 
[Ω 
a 
© 
μι 
‘= 
hey 
Ω 
< 
o4 
Sal 
a 
a8 
sal 


In Roman LITERATURE AND IN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 
HOWARD ROLLIN PATCH 


ἌΘῪ OF PRyA 
<a Oly Σ 


APR 17 1975 


“hy 
ἔζη OGiCAL eu 


BLB20 
ἘΠΕ 


} 
Le RAL 


Lay 


᾿ ᾿ ee Be ΓΝ ἜΝ 


here. iy Ln i Ne ᾿ a : 


fe ᾿ 
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ " ὃν ᾿ ; aN : 


ΝᾺ, ΠΣ ; ᾿ vi a 1) nun 7 
wr εν ᾿ δ We 
Pay Ἢ x y ἢ ᾿ ae " ty De, 
fa, ᾿ ; ᾿ ᾿ ὯΝ 


i 


ΤΩΝ, Cane 


ἢ 
He 


\De 
εἴς 


ΖΒ Ν 


τὰς 


By 


INLAY IN THE PAVEMENT OF THE CATHEDRAL AT SIENA 


4 
APR 17 1915 


Vot. III, No. 3 Aprit, 1922 


2 χὰ 
> 


Smith College Studies in 
Modern Languages 


EDITORS 
CAROLINE B. BOURLAND HOWARD R. PATCH 
ERNST H. MENSEL MARGARET ROOKE 
ALBERT SCHINZ 


THE TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 
IN RomAN LITERATURE AND IN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 


BY : 
HOWARD ROLLIN PATCH 
Associate Professor of English, Smith College 


NORTHAMPTON, MASS. PARIS 
SMITH COLLEGE LIBRAIRIE E, CHAMPION 


Published Quarterly by the 
Departments of Modern Languages of Smith College 


PRINTED AND GOUND BY 
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO, 
MANUFACTURING FUBLISHERS 

MENASHA, WISCONSIN 


THE TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 
In Roman Literature and in the Transitional Period 
BY 


HOWARD ROLLIN PATCH 


Associate Professor of English, Smith College 


ay ver i inns 
: ee ¥ ry, ν μὰ i Qe ἐν id aD range ian 

: ne aye 7 it ᾿ 7 ᾿ ᾿ ΤῊ ν᾿ ae a Mi ἣν ὑ 
ιὟ ΠΡ ᾿ ] ᾿ , ᾿ " os on oi } Wi 
a Γ ya ats ou ae 5' We Ne 7 τ ; " ᾿ ae . 7 
te ἢ ve ἥν ᾽ν re ᾿ a 

Yi 


= 


ἊΝ , ie 7 rie vol ᾿ ay oY : 4 
ἜΝ ᾿ Ἢ ΓΝ Ἢ 7 Ora. ἢ ‘| si" Wan 
| he bye) ie ἮΝ ae Τὰ δον ΠῚ ᾿ 7 i 


Ὶ εν it = ae ’ ae i 


‘is Bh 


Ὧν ΠΤ et 


᾽ν Ὺ 
i ᾿ 
ΩΣ 


Π" i ha τ ᾿ ἐγ ΙΝ ai, 
ia Ἢ oe eke Ἐν ΠΝ ᾿ 
ἫΝ “π᾿ ᾿ ἢ ᾿ Ἷ ἤτον a) Ἢ i ᾿ τὰ 


re on ᾿ ΓΝ ies 7 i ay Ν᾿ Css Age ΩΝ 
an oy Aly? ΣῊΝ νι} rae me, : ae a ete 
- Uy 7 a δι " 


oor “ne 


Mi Tee op Be ΠΝ ᾿ ἢ ἫΝ 
oy ΤΟΝ Ἐν ᾿ ᾿" », yA | ine : 
wo men gh os) ΤΡ 
᾿ 


se 
᾿ ἀμ] earn ἀν a ny ᾿ ἜΣ: Ἢ “1 Τὴ 
ΝΥΝ ee i, " ΓΝ ΩΝ an ya Ὦ eat 
ARS) RO ait ie ih, ΤῊ 
᾿" τ i eet ih ay ΨΩ A ἂν "ἢ " ΔΝ : ΤΥ τ 
; " ae ων. " ' ᾿ i" a " at We Ip ᾿ ἣν" Ἵ" We a 
Oe ΝΝ 
ΜῊ ees ἀν δ᾽ ae i! τ ᾿ wt) ἡ 7 4 Ἂν 
ae es ag ue Paani us πο ΠῚ] δ᾿ " ΠΝ 
eT se ee ee Tyna nee hay 
Bary AL ke γι 
vn viru Re r han i hy —— ᾿ 
᾿ ἣν ᾿ Ἵ i ῃ δι oy ay “ νον Ὶ 
n : Ἢ ; : Mi τὰ μὴ HW ity ᾿ " 
iy om nc ᾿ ν᾿ al ai a) ᾿ mM i Ae) Ἷ ἡ " 
ry } i if 


: " a ΚΝ “ἂν Ἢ eA, a ᾿ ᾿ a 
a a oe as An ὧν ἐν υ ne ἡ. ἣν ve }}- Mai een: Ἢ ua “it set ae ᾿ γ “i i. 
. ae 7 


i ᾿ "" " 
ἘΝ shy, ΤΩΝ Wei " iy 7 
ee ἌΣ 
ἜΗΝ a, she Dk a ee ἯΙ A a 
r ; " " ; Be) 


| ee x ων ἢ ame ΝΣ 
" ΤᾺΝ μι My, 2 δὴν ant ni oe arene ΝΣ i 
ἢ ᾿ ᾿ δ] ΠῚ isk m "ν᾿ ΓΙ ᾿ ᾿" ὑπ im 7 " ΩΝ ΠΝ 4 ᾿ ! 
eer ce 1, Si σνν. “2 9) ΟΝ 
Bh, ah ΕἾ ἊΝ nt my 7 ae i os ieee yi ἡ ft ᾿ ΠΝ ᾿ Ψ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ἮΝ thy ᾿ς ᾿ i “ 
μον Bit ‘ Ana he i ae ἜΝ Py ; ae ἵν 
co tay MAY Plog Ya! ani, Μὴ ΝΣ, »Ρ»- ΓΝ πὰ . oe hc 
a Bry ὑν ii, ᾿ ἡ δὴ if v ν᾿ a "ἢ ΨΩ 
Ged bie aa vie ιὰ a any tT , if eye 7 ᾿ Ν᾿ i in " 7 ᾿ ἱ / νΣ = 
ΠῚ ἣν De) ΝΥ "μ᾿ ἢ" fi " ᾿ τ ᾿ 7 ᾿ i : ἐν μ Ὁ _ u 7 
i ιν ἣν Pi ΠΝ; A vue ᾿ ᾿ τω i Sse a ι P fal Ty 7 
Pw ete iy ΠῚ a wie τ ΠΥ τ ἣν ᾿ ᾿ i 1 “ae 14 Π » cain iy 7 
᾿ ὮΝ "1 j ELD a1 ; ; atl ἣν ἜΡΙΝ ; 
et one 4 [on 
᾿ ΓΝ bd ᾿ ye ᾿ 
7 7 ay ΠΝ He i ty ig ee \ aD acer γ ΙΝ hd ΠῚ ἽΝ » Μ ; ᾿ ‘yy Ν ᾿" 
᾿ " mi mens |) mu ἢ ᾿ Ἢ ΙΝ Ah ᾿ Ν παν, τε ᾿ He rh tH i ie ta aT | t ann (ui 4) Γ 7 “A ᾿ : 

5 ἫΝ Κα 2 A ΝΥΝ a Tae oe he ΤΙ, Ἄν eh dilate : has ie ie ΜΝ 
ΝΣ ἘΣ \ pv. Lin ie Seay a Pay i Ahi ἴὰ νὴ ‘ Caen a a i] ) ᾿ iy val ᾿ ᾿ ἘΝ ᾿ | Wh 
(i ae Ho wk 4 7 υ Pe. as, ἐν iF apt | WT i dh heed No: > a ae 
va ἽΝ τὴν ΝΣ ᾿ ἥν ἡ Ane Pee ΓΝ Ν eal Ss 
“νι Wels a ae ἌΝ " io a ae 
a ay A ὼ Mi Hh) ee a 

uae By δῆνῳ ; 4! ἊΝ vey lif i ᾿ 
᾿ A " τω 


4 ᾿ ᾿ 
7 MA νων ἢ 4; ; 
ΓΌΝΥ rn ἐν les i ᾿ "ἢ ΠΥ hs har 
ute Wart to 8 


πὴ hale a 
“ὰ a fe ma ey hatte ae 7" 


, 

μ τον ᾿ 

i ye A ΝΞ 

᾿ ν" " Ι ἡ ἣν ἂν ’ pica i aa Neg wo ; ᾿ 

ἢ aa ἣν os or Ἷ Ν᾽ Th τὰν ‘ibe ᾿ iT mi a ut ofl ᾿ ἢ 

Ἢ ᾿ a bat an ne i, ! A bf ᾿ Medial ve ἡ" Lf ts ᾿ i ete hn oe a ie a ay τ i a 

, a shits a init i ᾿ ἫΝ a ΝῊ: a τὰ (ol hile νον ΣΝ ᾿ aie i ᾿ 

᾿ wa i ἢ ΕΒ wh ᾿ ui 2) ΠΩΣ Ah (Rees reo Pie " π᾿ ye 
: bike ed ie ᾿ : ᾿ iy φὴ ΠΝ 

ey | re aay i Frit Oe ἐἡ 


ΝΣ ; ὟΝ ω 
ἡ δ δ τὰ ἼΩΝ . OAL. με ' ΤΥ ial a μὰ ale j 
ον Cari i eae a) ΕΝ τὰ ie La ‘a sith ἣν ἡ 
᾿ ᾿ πὴ nt t ΠΝ be δ Lane fine ae 


PREFATORY NOTE 


The frontispiece is taken from a photograph of the inlay, 
designed by Pinturicchio, in the pavement of the Cathedral at 
Siena. For this picture I am indebted to the kindness of Miss 
Lizette A. Fisher, who procured it for me in Rome. The combina- 
tion of Roman and Medieval motifs makes it strikingly interesting 
and appropriate for this study. In the case of Fortuna herself, the 
ball, the cornucopia, the sail, and the prow, are Roman. The 
mountain, surrounded by the sea, and beset by many dangers for 
him who would climb it, is essentially Medieval. 

HOWARD R. PATCH 
Northampton, Massachusetts. 


The Tradition of the Goddess Fortuna 


In RomMAN LITERATURE AND IN THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD 


INTRODUCTION 


The purpose of this essay is to study the nature and functions 
of the Goddess of Fortune in Roman literature and the literature of 
the transitional period.!. The frequent appearance of this figure 
in documents of the Middle Ages is well-known, although, perhaps, 
not adequately appreciated. It is well-known, too, that the 
goddess existed in earlier days in Rome, and was actually wor- 
shipped as a prominent member of the pantheon. She is important, 
therefore, as a deity who was taken over after the transition from 
a polytheistic to a monotheistic religion, and her interest thus 
becomes twofold. 

Traits of the goddess in Rome, which were reflected in the 
literature, would naturally survive in the literary treatment of 
later ages. This fact would suggest the possibility that some of 
the old religious feeling might be retained in the Christian period. 
Are the references to Fortuna in the Middle Ages simply orna- 
mental and perfunctory, or has she inspired fresh imaginative 
endeavor? Does she appear in only one sort of literature: for 
example, as a Jay figure in a Classical background? Or is she a 
vital element in every variety of plot? Where precisely does the 
change from religion to allegory occur, or indeed does it really 
occur at all? 

And this brings up the question of allegory, which is, after all, 
only faded religion. The author of any kind of symbolical 
writing has something more in his conception than the mere out- 
ward signs, the painted surface of symbolism (or, as Dante calls 
it, the veil), however pleasing that may be aesthetically. The 
purpose of allegory is to reveal certain thoughts; and, in so doing, 


1 This paper is composed of a section of the Introduction and two chapters 
from my doctoral dissertation on The Goddess Fortuna in Medieval Literature, 
presented at Harvard University in 1915. Some slight alterations have been 
made in the present copy, but substantially the material is the same. 


191 


1:32 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


it employs terms which represent but do not necessarily reproduce 
the original ideas. The symbol need not actually imitate the 
idea, nor does it ordinarily replace it by a mere arbitrary formula. 
This type of art, accordingly, affords us pleasure that is quite 
distinct from that of the mere exercise of unriddling.? It gives us 
the meaning in the author’s mind clearly and felicitously, in a man- 
ner which, at its best, may be more direct than that of pure imita- 
tion. The symbol, however, may closely approach its original, and 
on their proximity depends how literally we may read its meaning. 
If the ideas are “religious,’’ we may be coming close to some 
knowledge of the author’s religion. Allegory and religion are 
frequently intermingled, and what one man takes literally as a 
deity another takes as a “force.” <A religious symbol in the 
figure of a goddess, then, becomes actually a goddess when the 
concept in the symbol warms the features of its cold material 
embodiment into life. Fortune was once worshipped as a deity; 
does she retain this position in the Middle Ages? Or, if she has 
become temporarily a symbol, does she at any time revive? 

Obviously these questions touch on a still larger problem, 
which arises from the peculiar nature of Fortuna. She is con- 
cerned not merely with one phase of human existence, as are 
most gods and goddesses,—Ceres, for example, with the harvest, 
and Neptune with the sea and its dangers,—but she gradually 
usurps all places until she approximates the dignity of a female 
Jove. She becomes the ruling power of the universe, although 
her government is without a plan. If at any time we find her 
suddenly steadied in subordination to some other deity, the change 
is significant for the philosophy of life in that period. In other 
words, the attitude of a period toward Fortuna reveals its attitude 
toward the question of fatalism. And thus the problem of 
Fortune is at once linked with the questions of fate and free-will; 
of the drama of fate; of sentimental and rationalistic art; and, if 
it is not too bold to put it that way, with the great crux, Classicism 
and Romanticism. 


2 Or, as one writer puts it, of “Crossing the debatable land between allegorical 
and literal, and establishing [oneself] securely and happily on the open ground of 
literal narrative’: W.R. MacKenzie, The English Moralities, Boston and London, 
1914, p. 258. 


CHAPTER I 
FORTUNA IN ROMAN LITERATURE AND THOUGHT 


In Rome, close to the Tiber and on the right as one crosses the 
Ponte Palatino, stands a plain little Ionic temple, supported 
apparently with eighteen columns, and well preserved despite the 
ravages of many centuries. Since it was converted to its present 
use in 872 A. D., it has been called the Santa Maria Egiziaca. 
It is usually considered an old temple of the goddess Fortuna, 
worshipped here especially as the protecting deity of women.! 
Fortuna, who flourished in Rome in great power, often acquired 
special duties, and in the performance of these received appro- 
priate cognomina,—Fortuna Virilis, Fortuna Barbata, For- 
tuna Respiciens, and the like.2 But the cult of the goddess 
really embraced all of these. Minor evidence of the worship 
is found in plenty of images and plaques, and a treasury of coins. 
We have, in addition, the literary treatment and the inscriptions 
which mention her. As a deity, she was mother, nurse, provider, 
guardian, friend, and enemy, to the Roman, and the child of 
Jupiter himself. 

The cult was strongest at the time of Rome’s greatest vigor, 
when Rome like a great youth conscious of his physical endow- 
ments, but possessing too little self-control for the mastery of them, 
spread its conquests and discoveries over the world, sent ships 
as far as Britain, and held Greece in thrall. The great question 


1See Roscher, 1510; Wissowa, Real Encyc., 19 ff.; Middleton II, 189-90. Cf. 
Wissowa, R. K., §40, p. 256; 5. B. Platner, The Topography and Monuments of An- 
cient Rome, Boston, 1911, pp. 399 ff. Some scholars hold that Fors Fortuna was 
the forerunner of Fortuna. She first received the cognomen, which later broke 
off and became independent. For this complicated process, see Carter, Religion 
of Numa, p. 24: “And thus, just as in certain of the lower organisms a group of 
cells breaks off and sets up an individual organism of its own, so in old Roman 
religion some phase of a god’s activity, expressed in an adjective, broke off with the 
adjective from its original stalk and set up for itself, turning its name from the 
dependent adjective form into the independent abstract noun.” See Wissowa, 
R. K., §10; Fowler, Relig. Exper., pp. 153 ff. 

2 See R. Peter, Roscher 1511. 


133 


134 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


of the day concerning Caesar was, ‘‘What conquest brings he 
home?” With the riches of all countries in the cargo of Italian 
ships, came new religions by the score. The element of chance 
would naturally be felt to play a large part in life; and Rome 
was most susceptible to foreign suggestion, dabbling in new faiths 
and creeds, and reviving the old for hardly more than idle pleasure. 
Civilization was necessarily in a state of skepticism and transition. 
It had too much of the youth’s universal wonder to be held by 
any well-knit, dogmatic belief. It was the time of the beginning 
of the Empire; and in this period Fortuna, born long before, really 
came into her own. 

The goddess had at least twenty-eight different functions and 
cognomina.? She was mixed most intimately and oddly with other 
gods.t The history of Fortuna in Rome had an early beginning 
in the worship of the mythical Servius Tullius, who built at least 
two temples in her honor.’ At the time of the first Punic War, the 
consul Lutatius Cerco wanted to get advice from the oracle of the 
goddess at Praeneste, but Rome forbade.’ In 167 B. C. Prusias 
sacrificed at Praeneste to Fortuna Primigenia for the victory of 
the Roman people. By the time of the Empire there were at 
least eighteen temples and shrines to Fortuna in her different 
functions, and they were scattered all over the city.’ 

The religious condition of the city at the beginning of the 
_ Empire has often been treated. For present purposes the follow- 
ing authoritative statements will suffice. Wissowa says that for 
educated people the gods of the state religion had weakened to 
empty shadows;® and Peter, that the Empire inclined to the syn- 
cretism of the divinities.2 Wissowa summarizes the situation thus: 
‘‘Man wendet sich mit dem Gebete an eine ganz allgemein ver- 
schwommene, hichst unpersénlich gedachte Gottheit.’2° This 


3 Roscher, 1508 ff. 

4 Roscher, 1530 ff. 

5 Roscher, 1509. Cf. Wissowa, R. K., p. 256. 

6 Roscher, 1516; Wissowa, R. K., p. 260. 

7See Roscher; and for full discussion, Daremberg-Saglio, 25, 1268 ff. Foran 
interesting summary of the spread of Fortuna outside of Rome and even of Italy, 
see Roscher, 1548 ff. Fora restoration of the temple at Palestrina by Canina, see: 
The Life of the Greeks and Romans by E.Guhl and W. Koner, N.Y., 1876, p. 327, fig. 347. 

8 Wissowa, R. K., pp. 83-4. 

9 Roscher, 1530. 

10 Wissowa, R. K., p. 84. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 135 


is the background, and now let us turn to the locus classicus for 
the Fortuna of the Empire, Pliny: ‘‘Invenit tamen inter has 
utrasque sententias medium sibi ipsa mortalitas numen, quo minus 
etiam plana de deo coniectatio esset. toto quippe mundo et omni- 
bus locis omnibusque horis omnium vocibus Fortuna sola invocatur 
ac nominatur, una accusatur, rea una agitur, una cogitatur, sola 
laudatur, sola arguitur et cum conviciis colitur, volubilis . . . que, 
a plerisque vero et caeca existimata, vaga, inconstans, incerta, 
varia, indignorumque fautrix. huic omnia expensa, huic feruntur 
accepta, et in tota ratione mortalium sola utramque paginam 
facit, adeoque obnoxiae sumus sortis, ut prorsus ipsa pro deo sit 
qua deus probatur incertus.’’!! 

She was, then, a deity that absorbed all the others. Later 
in studying the cults we shall see that she was the goddess of the 
state as well as of the individual; the goddess of the lower classes 
as well as of the higher; the goddess of women, and of the young 
men too. “The various classes of the population venerated their 
own goddess of Fortune.’ There was the Fortuna of the differ- 
ent great families: Fortuna Flavia, Fortuna Juvenia, Fortuna 
Torquatiana, etc. And there was the Fortune of the particular 
individual: Fortuna Augusta; the Fortuna of Pompey; the 
Fortuna of Sejanus. ‘‘All these Fortunes are quite individual 
Schiitzg6ttinnen, and fundamentally not different from the 
Tutela.”’!® Here indeed is a personal goddess. This, whatever 


1 Pliny, NV. H., 2, 22. “Among these discordant opinions mankind have 
discovered for themselves a kind of intermediate deity, by which our skepticism 
concerning God is still increased. For all over the world, inall places, and at all 
times, Fortune is the only god whom everyone invokes; she alone is spoken of, she 
alone is accused and is supposed to be guilty; she alone is in our thoughts; is praised 
and blamed and loaded with reproaches; wavering as she is, conceived by the gen- 
erality of mankind to be blind, wandering, inconstant, uncertain, variable, and 
often favouring the unworthy. To her are referred all our losses and all our gains, 
and in casting up the accounts of mortals she alone balances the two pages of our 
sheet. We are so much in the power of chance, that change itself is considered as a 
God and the existence of God becomes doubtful.” Trans. J. Bostock, and H. T. 
Riley, Bohn ed. 


12 Peter, Roscher, 1520. Cf. Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 34. 


13 Roscher, 1522. Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 34: ‘‘Einzelne Personen verehren 
ihre eigene Fortuna, ganz ihnlich wie den Genius.” 


“JT differ here, obviously, from Axtell, who has studied the deification of 
abstractions in Rome. See Appendix A to this chapter. 


136 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


preceded, is the state of things at the beginning of the 
Empire.” 

As to the cult that developed during this flourishing period of 
the deity, it included one of those strange, almost automatic 
phenomena that spring up when religious development seems to 
be taken out of the hands of man. The cult of Fortuna-Panthea 
looks almost like an organism in itself. Fortuna appears, her own 
qualities strongly enough marked to identify her, and also provided 
with attributes from many other deities.° One portrayal (ona 
lamp) shows her as a winged deity with a long tunic, her head 
covered with a helmet. She holds a cornucopia in her left hand, 
and with her right offers a bowl to a serpent near an altar at her 
feet. Around these figures, are arranged: the eagle of Jove; the 
dolphin of Neptune; the club of Hercules; the sistrum of Isis; the 
lyre of Apollo; the tongs of Vulcan; the caduceus of Mercury; 
and many more symbols.!” 

Fortuna has simply taken over the symbols of these gods as 
she has taken over their functions.!8 This latter point we shall 
see in studying the divisions of the cult. The explanation which 
Jahn gives is as follows: “Bei der Haiufung und Vermischung der 
verschiedenartigen Culte entstand ein leicht erklarliches Bediirf- 
nis, die Krifte der verschiedenen Gottheiten auf einen Punkt zu 
concentrieren.’!® Why was this particular point chosen for con- 
centration? Fortuna must have been not only suitable, but also 
popular and full of vitality. Axtell sees this from a slightly 
different point of view: ‘‘We may also see the lack of strong in- 
dividuality in the use of abstracts as cognomina of other gods, for 
in proportion as they become mere qualities transparent in their 


15 A note as to the treatment in art: Peter (Roscher, 1503ff.) says: “Haupt- 
sichlich aber sind aus der Kaiserzeit eine uniibersehbare Menge von Fortunen 
bildern, welche die Géttin in der angegebenen Weise darstellen, in Marmorstatuen, 
Bronzen, auf Miinzen, geschnittenen Steinen, Wandgemilden und sonstigen Bild- 
werken erhalten.” 

16 See Roscher, 1534 ff. 

17See description of Minervini: Bulletino archeologico napolitano, nuov. 
ser., 3, 1855, taf. 7, n. 1; p. 182. See for a seal of F. Panthea, H. Jordan, Sym- 
bolae ad histor. relig. Italic., 1883, p. 13, which includes Venus, Cupid, Minerva, 
Harpocrates. 

18 Roscher, 1536, “Der Sinn dieser Bilder ist offenbar, dass die Gliicksgéttin 
die Macht aller Gotter in sich vereinigt.” 

19 Jahn, 50. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 197 


name they lose their identity and are attached to other more 
clearly recognized deities to whom their qualities are suited.’ 
This is to the advantage of Fortuna certainly. She was not a 
power with a single function, but a general ruler; and to this For- 
tuna Panthea, (under the name of πάντων Τύχη) Trajan built a 
Temple.” 

Such, then, was the goddess to whom much devotion was 
offered throughout the time of Rome’s greatest strength. To her 
the victor offered his sacrifice in gratitude for the victory. The 
poet sang her praises. The greatest emperors reared temples in 
her honor. And her appeal had in its scope not only the youth 
in the hope of full manhood, the maid desiring a husband, the 
husbandman praying for plentiful crops, the sailor waiting for a fair 
wind or invoking safe guidance into port, but also the devotees of 
Hercules, Isis, Apollo, Mercury, and many others. We may be 
sure that she was not merely a “‘fabulous”’ or ‘‘civil” deity;” but 
that the good Roman at home, in lieu of our orthodox rapping on 
wood, found it advisable to scatter a little incense at her shrine 
before a venture. 


I. 


We may now reasonably inquire who was this goddess? where 
did she come from? was her ancestry respectable, and who were her 
forebears? how did she get power enough to gain so firm a hold on 
the religious life of the city? 

First, note that she is not one of the di indigetes. Although 
this is true, she resembles them at least in one respect,—in that 
she does not possess a legendary or poetic biography like that of the 
Greek deities who flourish in Ovid. The Roman poets do not 
seem to create their gods or develop those already created, but 
rather to reflect them as they are already imagined in the thought 
of the time. 

The vigor of the growth of Fortuna, however, is more remark- 
able than that of the di zndigetes. They were all deities of special- 


20 Axtell, pp. 94 ff. 
21 Roscher, 1536 (who refers to Lyd. de mens. 4, 7; and Preller, R. M. 3 2,188); 
and see Gaidoz, 59 ff. 


22 Cf. St. Augustine on the discussion in Varro, De Civ. Dei., vii, 3 (Migne, 
Pat. Lat., St. Aug. XLI, 196). 


138 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


ized activity, concerned with the practical affairs of Roman life, 
such as the hearth, the doorway, the cupboard, and the plow; 
Fortuna, on the other hand, is a goddess born from an abstraction 
concerned with no particular function of daily life. This fact is 
the more striking if, as some believe, early Roman thought was not 
inclined to generalizations of this kind;*? and especially when we 
consider that Greek conceptions were not borrowed until the Sec- 
ond Punic War.** The question arises, what force or what need 
brought Fortuna into being in Rome between the time of the 
early religion and the time of Greek influence? 

The problem of the birth of Fortuna falls really into two parts: 
(1) the origin of Fortuna as the Romans regarded her in general; 
(2) the origin of Fortuna, the goddess of pure chance. We shall 
see later that she had assumed the second form at the beginning 
of the Empire. Now we must consider how this came about; 
whether she was always the goddess of chance; and if not, what 
she was before. 

The question of what Fortuna was in her earliest form, I cannot 
discuss in much detail here, except to remark that various types of 
evidence point to her origin as a moon-goddess; a sun-goddess; 
a close relative of Isis; a transformation of the Etruscan Nortia; 
a goddess of horticulture; of women; of childbirth; a protecting 
and cherishing goddess. Any or several of these conceptions may 
have stood behind the term in the early days. Etymology leaves 
us with the idea that originally Fortune merely bestowed,— 


23 Axtell, Wissowa, Fowler, all seem to disbelieve in any great use of abstrac- 
tions in early Roman religion. See Wissowa, R. K., p. 23; Mommsen, vol. I, p. 211. 
Axtell, p. 62, says that he is inclined to take a middle ground; but in his summary 
he allows few of the later abstractionsany personality. See Fowler, Relig. Exper., 
p. 154; cf. Carter, Relig. of Numa, p. 24. 

*4 Wissowa, R. K., pp. 47 ff. Cf. Aust, p. 54: before the time of the Second 
Punic War, “Die Natiirlichen Vorstellungsgebilde des geistig tiefstehenden Mensch- 
en, der nicht blos die einzelnen Erscheinungen und Thitigkeiten, sondern auch 
ihre einzelnen Teile in die géttliche Sphire erhebt, sind wahrscheinlich schon durch 
die Sakrale Gesetzegebung des Numa in die Staatsreligion iibergangen, haben 
aber in den ersten Jahrhunderten der Republic durch die Pontifices eine kiinstliche 
Erweiterung erfahren.” Cf. Fowler, Relig. Exper., pp. 229 ff. 


25 For fuller discussion see Appendix C to this chapter. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 139 


bestowed anything.” Whether she bestowed idly or capriciously, 
or with a clearly marked scheme, is a later question.?? 

But what brought about the introduction of the idea of 
chance and fickleness into Roman thought? Two answers seem 
possible. One is that Fortuna is borrowed from a foreign religion. 
Rome borrowed many gods, merely because the more favorable 
gods a nation has, the safer, of course, is its position. Fowler 
tells us that ““The temple foundations of this period . . . show 
that there was a certain tendency to bring in deities from outside, 
not so much because they represented some special need of the 
Romans, corn or art or industry, as two centuries earlier, but 
simply because they were deities of the conquered whom it might 
be prudent to adopt.’8 The difficulty with this explanation is 
that while it might fully account for the case of many a half- 
hearted adoption of god or goddess, it does not explain the re- 
markable hospitality with which the Romans received and 
cherished Fortuna. The Roman temperament must have been 
fitted to receive her; the house must have been more or less ready 
before the guest came. 

Carter hardly overcomes this difficulty when he suggests, plaus- 
ibly enough, that the early Fortuna was “Goddess of plenty and 
fertility, among mankind as a protectress of women and of child- 
birth,’”9 and that Greek influence made the concept of luck prevail. 
It is his opinion that the old goddess was Fors, with fortuna added 
as a cognomen which broke off and became independent. But 


% *Bhar; “she who brings,” after the word became feminine. Corssen, Krit. 
Beitr. zur lat. Formenlehre, 1863, 194; Curtius, Griech. Etym., 1879, 299 ff. See 
for a study of the cognomina (which seem to reveal little) Carter, Amer. Philol. 
Assoc. trans., 1900, XX XI, pp. 60 ff.; De Deor. Rom. pp. 29 ff. 


27 Corssen naturally cannot touch on the question of implied fate or implied 
chance and haphazard luck. Axtell conjectures (p. 9) “most probably she[F.] 
was a beneficent power of good luck in the earliest stage.” Cf. Wissowa, Real- 
Encyc., 12. Corssen, 194 ff., says: “So steht jedenfalls so viel fest, dass 
fors und fortuna niemals ,Freude‘ oder ,Gliick‘, sondern immer nur ,Zufall‘ be- 
deutet haben, ,Gliickszufall‘ wie sUngliickszufall’.” 

28 Relig. Exper., p. 284. Cf. Aust, 55, who says that in a siege the Romans 
prayed the tutelary gods of foreign cities to leave those cities and come to Rome. 


29 Relig. of Numa, p. 51. 


140 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


here again, the Romans must have been temperamentally ready 
for such a development, external influence effecting it or not.*° 

We need not be particularly concerned here with determining 
when this change came about, but we must note that it certainly 
occurred before the Empire. It seems fair to believe that the new 
conception had its source quite as much in the change of the 
Roman temper, when it gathered together its new powers, as in 
any influx of Greek philosophy. Aust held, “Dass unter den 
zahllosen, durch Weihinschriften bekannten Beinamen eines 
Juppiter, Mars, Hercules, einer Juno, Diana, Fortuna zumeist 
orientalische und barbarische Lokal- und Landesgétter sich ver- 
bergen.’’! We might supplement this by saying that under the 
numerous foreign gods which came to Rome, are hidden certain 
di indigetes of which we know nothing, or certain early Roman 
conceptions not quite apotheosized. It is often forgotten, when 
scholars observe that the early Christian Church borrowed much 
that is Oriental in symbolism and in sacrament, that these bor- 
rowings are only a necessary response to an inherently Christian 
need, and toa desire not at all Oriental. 

The explanation that I am offering here would require simply 
that Fortuna found a place in Rome because the Romans already 
had an idea equivalent to this personification, or in some measure 
related. The Greek Τύχη can tell us nothing except as an interest- 
ing parallel development; Rome had to create its own goddess of 
chance, and it had to accomplish this process by altering its con- 
ception of the bestowing force. A man’s attitude toward the 
bestowing force depends on the kind of life he is living. The life 
that causes a strong belief in the element of chance may be of 
two kinds:—A man may feel himself too weak to cope with the 
external powers, and may consequently believe that he is in the 
control of an outer destiny. On the other hand, he may be so 
physically vigorous that he launches forth boldly into the unknown, 
and then the vast unconquerable spaces of that region impress 
themselves upon him. Under these circumstances, again, he 
feels himself at the mercy of the outer forces. He is less inclined 


30 Note that, according to Carter, Τύχη in Greece originally fulfilled the will of 
Zeus: Relig. of Numa, p. 50. It was a later development that brought in the idea 
of chance. 


31 Aust, p. 105. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 141 


to trust his own wits, or to believe in free-will; he is more likely to 
speak of chance. The latter we can conjecture would be the 
Roman attitude toward ‘‘the bestower”’ during Rome’s changes of 
philosophy, during its great expeditions into the unknown, and 
during its fluctuation of creed and life. This attitude would 
determine the meaning of the word “Fortuna” and give birth to 
our goddess of Fortune. 

This speculation gives at least a reasonable answer to the 
question of sex. Even if the old Roman religion did not conceive 
of their gods in couples, as some scholars have maintained,” 
a conception of a feminine ‘“‘bestower’’ might arise from the early 
conceptions covered by the term, because every one of these 
naturally implied the creative power, the idea of femininity.* 
The fundamental idea of ‘“‘Fortuna”’ is the bestower;*4 the conno- 
tation is that of the creative goddess. May we not suspect also 
that other feminine qualities were present in the idea at a fairly 
early period? At least it was easy to include such qualities 
as mobility, inconstancy, capriciousness; in fact, this was the 
next step for the Roman to take, no matter what happened in 
_Greek thought. 


11. 


Thus far we have considered the conflict of theories about the 
birth and development of Fortuna. That she was the goddess of 
chance at the time of the early Empire, all the authorities happily 
agree. “Fortuna, as her name implies,’ says Peter, “is the 
goddess of chance . . . She implies also a divinity of fate. But 


83 Cf., however, Wissowa, R. K., 22 ff.; Fowler, Relig. Exper., 148 ff. 

33 See the separate goddesses representing these conceptions: Luna, Flora, 
Pomona, Ceres, Lucina, etc. The only difficulty is with the sun-god who in 
southern climes is nearly always masculine. In northern countries we have die 
Sonne. Gaidoz has trouble with this problem, but finds an original explanation to 
satisfy him (p. 57). I do not attempt to solve this; one can suggest the influence 
of the northern Nortia here, or the fact that the majority of the number are femi- 
nine. At any rate the strongest part of theideais the creative, das Ewig-Weibliche. 
Fowler’s note (p. 154) that “abstract qualities . . . are usually feminine in 
Latin” seems to me to solve nothing. For the creative in Fortuna see the later 
cults: Fortuna Virilis, F. Muliebris, F. of Antium (with right breast exposed). 
See appendix C to this chapter. 

34 Cf. Introduction to the History of Religions, C. H. Toy, Boston, 1943, §702, 
“The mass of evidence determining life by the will of the gods.”’ This is the pure 
abstraction,—our “fortune.” 


142 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


while Fate is the personification of the inflexible and unchanging 
destiny, Fortune is a divine creature, ‘who now with a favorable, 
now with an unfavorable disposition, appears as the source of all 
the unexpected and unaccountable.’ The statement of Otto 
is as follows: ‘‘Als G6ttin vertritt Fortuna urspriinglich keines- 
wegs den reinen Zufall, ebensowenig, wie Τύχη; but he adds that 
later times believed principally in blind chance in opposition to 
divine providence.**® Hild puts it in about the same way: For- 
tune is the “personification of the capricious and changeable 
influence, sometimes gloomy, sometimes favorable, which is seen 
in the life of individuals and of nations, and which without the 
appearance of any rule, whether of logic or morality, bestows 
success or inflicts its opposite. She is distinguished from Fate in 
that Fate is the expression of a law which reason admits without 
always explaining it; Tyché-Fortuna represents above all the 
derogations from that law, the unforeseen in human existence— 
full of incoherence and even of injustice—which can defy all 
reason and repel the moral sense.’’?” 

Let us now turn our study to the literary treatment. In 
this field what seems to be the attitude toward the goddess of 
fortune? What is the relation of Fortune to Jupiter? to the 
Fates? 

Before entering into this question, it will be well to remember 
that, as I have said above, many scholars believe that Fortuna 
originally stood for a goddess of fate.** There are many inscrip- 


86 Roscher, 1503 ff., quoting Preller, Rom. Myth. II.,p.179. Preller’s full state- 
ment is as follows: ‘‘Schicksal und Gliick sind eigentlich verschiedene Begriffe; 
auch deutet Manches darauf, dass man sich in Italien dieses Unterschiedes wohl 
bewusst war. Dennoch musste fiir gewéhnliche die Anbetung der Fors oder 
Fortuna sowohl dem einen als dem andern Bediirfnisse des menschlichen Gemiithes 
entsprechen, ausser und neben den eigentlichen Cultusgéttern eine damonische 
Macht von unbestimmter, ja unendlicher Tragweite zu verehren,” etc. 

3% Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 13. Cf. Wissowa, R. K., p. 261. Cf. Fowler, 
Roman Ideas of Deity, pp. 61 ff., especially pp. 78, 80; Relig. Exper., p. 245, n. 30° 

37 Dar.-Saglio, 22, 1264; Cf. Hartung, p. 233; Carter, Relig. of Numa, pp. 
50-51; in relation to the study of τύχη, see Cumont, p. 179. For discuss. of Fatum 
see Roscher, 1446 ff.; Wissowa, Real Encyc. XII, 2047. Cf. an old statement by 
Gaidoz, “La Fortune devient alors la divinité de la Destinée par excellence,” 
and the discussion of St. Augustine, Gaidoz, pp. 56, 58 (1886). 

88 See Otto, quotedabove. See Roscher on the cult of Praeneste, 1541; Canter, 
pp. 64 ff. Cf. W. W. Fowler, Relig. Exper., p. 245, n. 30. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 143 


tions to prove that she was accepted as the first-born of Jupiter®® 
and in another legend she suckles him. She was included in a 
group with Jupiter and Juno; and in many ways she showed 
herself not at all independent, or self-sufficient, but clearly asso- 
ciated with another and sometimes greater ruling power. 

Let us begin a little before the time of the Empire: 

I. Sallust (Cat. 8): 

Sed profecto Fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas 
ex lubidine magis quam ex vero celebrat obscuratque.*! 
II. Cicero (de Nat. Deor. iii, 61): 

Quo in genere vel maxime est fortuna numeranda, quam nemo 
ab inconstantia et temeritate sejunget, quae digna certe non sunt 
deo.” 

(De Divin. ii, 7) 

Nihil enim est tam contrarium rationi et constantiae, quam 
fortuna, ut mihi ne in deum quidem cadere videatur, ut sciat, 
quid casu et fortuito futurum sit.8 _ 

III. Horace (Carm. III, X XIX, 49): 


Fortuna saevo laeta negotio, et 

ludum insolentem ludere pertinax 
transmutat incertos honores, 
nunc mihi, nunc alii benigna.# 


IV. Ovid has an abundance of references to Fortuna.*® Of these 
the following are the best known and most often quoted in the 
Middle Ages: 


39 Note the cult of Fortuna Primigenia. See Roscher, pp. 1541 ff.; Wissowa, 
R. K., pp. 259 ff. 

40 Roscher, 1543 ff. 

| “But assuredly F. holdeth sway in every affair; she giveth fame or oblivion 
to all things more at her whim than according to their true desert.” 

“ “Of this kind I may particularly mention F., which is allowed to be ever 
inseparable from inconstancy and temerity, which are certainly qualities unworthy 
of a divine being.” Trans. C. Ὁ. Yonge, Bohn ed. 

*8“For nothing is so opposite to regularity and reason as this same F., so 
that it seems to me that God himself cannot foreknow absolutely those things 
which are to happen by chance and fortune.” Trans. Yonge. 

*“F., who joys in her cruel business, nor ever tires of her tyrannous sport, 
shifts from one to another her fickle honours, now bounteous to me, now to some 
one else.” Trans. Wickham. 

*© Perhaps Ovid’s philosophy was revealed in the lines (Ex Ponto, III, 49-50): 

Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus, 
Et certam praesens vix habet hora fidem. 


144 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


(Tristia, V, Eleg. VIII, 15-18) 

Passibus ambiguis Fortuna volubilis errat 
et manet in nullo certa tenaxque loco: 

sed modo laeta venit; vultus modo sumit acerbos; 
et tantum constans in levitate sua est.* 


(Ex Ponto, Lib. IV, Ep. III, 29-36) 
Quid facis, ah demens? cur si Fortuna recedat, 
naufragio lacrimas eripis ipse tuo? 
haec dea non stabili, quam sit levis, orbe fatetur, 
quem summum dubio sub pede semper habet. 
quolibet est folio, quavis incertior aura: 
par illi levitas, improbe, sola tua est 
omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.*’ 


V. Seneca (Phaedrus, 978 ff.): 


(Chorus) Res humanas ordine nullo 
Fortuna regit spargitque manu 
munera caeca, peiora fovens; 
vincit sanctos dira libido, 
fraus sublimi regnat in aula.*® 


These passages serve to show that the literary Fortuna was 
a goddess of pure caprice. In Art, too, she seems to show little 
stability or constancy. Her common symbolic attributes in 
Roman Art were: (1) the horn of plenty; (2) the rudder; and (3) 


4 “Fleeting F. wanders with doubting steps, and remains in no one place for 
certain, and to be relied upon. At one moment, she abides in a place full of joy; 
at another, she assumes an austere countenance; and only in her very fickleness is 
she constant.” Trans. H. T. Riley. 


47“What art thou doing, madman? Why art thou withdrawing tears from 
thy own wreck, supposing that Fortune should abandon thee? That Goddess con- 
fesses how changeable she is on her unsteady wheel, which she ever keeps on its 
edge, under her wavering foot; she is more fleeting than a leaf or than any breeze. 
Thy fickleness, thou faithless one, is alone equal to her. All that belongs to man 
is pendent from a single thread.” 7014. 


48 “Chance without order does command 
Th’ affairs of men; and with blind hand 
Her ill-placed bounties does dispence, 
Whilst lust triumphs o’er Innocence. 
Fraud does in courts of princes reign.” 

Trans. Sir E. Sherburne. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 145 


the ball or the wheel.*? Other less important symbols are: (1) 
the measure of fruit; (2) ears of corn; (3) prow of a ship; (4) wings; 
and (5) the libation bowl.*®° There is symbolic significance in her 
position—standing or sitting. “The sitting Fortuna is evidently 
not so mobile, so transitory, so fleeting a creature, but is con- 
sidered as a Fortune who has paused for a longer stay.’’>! 

On the symbols I have mentioned, there is this comment to be 
made. Each is a symbol of some quality. Not like the owl of 
Minerva, the symbol of place (7. 6. the Parthenon); but like the 
wings on the feet of Mercury, or the caduceus, the symbol of some 
characteristic which identifies the divinity. The rudder sym- 
bolizes the guide of life; the ball, the wings, the standing position, 
are symbolic of the transitoriness of fortune. 

I dwell thus long on the evidence that Fortuna was considered 
arbitrary and whimsical, because there are instances where she is 
mixed up with the Fates or identified with them, and where it is 
implied that her work is of the same character as theirs. I wish 
to indicate that during the Empire this confusion means merely 
that the Fates had in general become haphazard; that the element 
of chance was thrust in everywhere. Destiny’s plan seemed not 
so enduring as heretofore. This same confusion occurs in the 
Middle Ages, and there we must study the Medieval point of 
view which is to make either the Fates capricious or Fortuna 
constant. 

In Rome, a typical example of the confusion is the following: 
Juvenal (7, 194 ff.): 

Distat enimquae 
sidera te excipiant modo primos incipientem 
edere vagitus et adhuc a matre rubentem. 
si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul; 
si volet haec eadem, fiet de consule rhetor. 


49 Roscher, 1505: “Diese drei Attribute sind so ausschliesslich zu Symbolen 
der Gliicksgéttin geworden, dass sie fiir sich allein die stelle des Bildes der Géttin 
vertreten.”’ The wheel is reserved for discussion in another paper, but see Kirby 
F. Smith, Tibullus, N. Y., 1913, p. 306, n. 70; Canter, p. 77. 


50 See for the list, Roscher 1504 ff. Besides these, of course, are the many 
attributes of Isis-Fortuna and Fortuna-Panthea, Roscher 1530, 1534; 1549 ff. 


51 Roscher, 1505, where Peter compares the significance in the attitudes of 
Vulcan. 


146 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


Ventidius quid enim? quid Tullius? anne aliud quam 
sidus et occulti miranda potentia fati? 
servis regna dabunt, captivis fata triumphum.™ 


Here the fates calmly take over the function of Fortuna, and it is 
clear that Juvenal attributes no preconceived and eternal plan 
to their universe.** 

Roman philosophy distinguished, however, between fortune 
and fate. That it did so is not an indication, necessarily, that the 
popular mind did the same; but the distinction will serve as a 
basis for our analysis: 

I. Cicero (de Fato, iii): 

Quaero igitur, (atque hoc late patebit) si fati omnino nullum 
nomen, nulla natura, nulla vis esset; et forte, temere, casu, aut 
pleraque fierent, aut omnia; num aliter, an nunc eveniunt, evenir- 
ent? Quid ergo attinet inculcare fatum, cum sine fato ratio omni- 
um rerum ad naturam fortunamve referatur?™ 

Here, without the intention of distinction, is a clear contrast 
between fate and fortune on the ground that the latter is the ruler 
of chance. 1 shall add Plutarch, who, although he wrote in 


52 “Tt makes a difference what stars receive thee when thou beginnest thy 
first wailings, when thou art still rosy from thy mother. If Fortuna wills, from a 
rhetorician thou shalt become a consul; by the same token if she wills, the consul 
will become ἃ rhetorician. What of the case of Ventidius? what of Tullius? any- 
thing there but the stars, the wondrous power of secret destiny?—The fates will 
give kingdoms to slaves, to captive men the triumphal procession.” 


53 There is a nice problem in the interpretation of the Horatian line: 
Te semper antit serva Necessitas, 
(Carm., 1, XXXV). In my opinion it should be studied in connection with Dante’s 
similar passage (Inf. VII, 89): 
Necessita la fa esser veloce. 

Cf. D’Alton, pp. 112, 228. In Virgil, on the other hand, Fortune seems to become 
steadied in a reminiscence of her older meaning, and Fate is dominant. Ci. 
Aeneid V, ll. 709; ll. 604. See Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity, p. 77. 


64 “T ask then—and this principle is capable of extensive application—if there 
were absolutely no such name, no such nature, and no such influence as that of 
Fate, and if, as a general rule, the majority of events or every event, happened 
at random and by chance, would they happen otherwise than they do? Why 
then should we always resort to Fate, when without any such principle the cause 
of every event may be fairly referred to nature, or to Fortune?” ‘Trans. Yonge. 


5 And cf. Pliny, p. 135 above. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 147 


Greek and introduces the influence of Aristotle, represents phases 
of the thought of Roman civilization under the Empire: 


(De Fato 7): 

Τὸ μέντοι [αἴτιον] κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ὅταν μὴ μόνον ἐν τοῖς ἕνεκά του 
γίγνηται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν οἷς ἡ προαίρεσις, τότε δὴ καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τύχης προσ- 
avyopeverar.*® 

(De Fat. 5): 

Mova δ᾽ εἱμαρμένα καὶ καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην τὰ ἀκόλουθα τοῖς ἐν TH θείᾳ 
διατάξει προηγησαμένοις."Ἷ 

(De Fat. 7): 

Διὸ καὶ τὸ μὲν αὐτόματον κοινὸν ἐμψύχων τε Kal ἀψύχων: ἡ δὲ τύχη 
ἀνθρώπου ἴδιον ἤδη πράττειν δυναμένου. 5 


In this distinction between Fortune, Fate, and chance, we have 
a new problem introduced, the question of free-will. I shall 
touch on that problem elsewhere. For the present, it suffices to 
show that the Fates have a predetermined plan and Fortune is 
purely capricious.°? The capricious goddess, then, is what we 
shall mean by the ‘‘pagan Fortuna.” She is in control of the 
universe, but she is quite arbitrary about it. 


In this study of the meaning and philosophy of Fortune, the 
question arises what is the remedy for such a controlling force in 
the universe? One must necessarily suffer from a turn of the tide. 
What can we do about it? The good pagan could only answer: 
“Bear it; wait for still another reversal.’’ This, carried a little 
further, became the advice to oppose your strength to that of 


56 ““Now the cause by accident,when it is found in a thing which not merely is 
done for some end but has in it free will and election, is then called Fortune.” 
Trans. “A. G.”; ed. Goodwin. Plutarch’s Morals. This is Aristotelian. The 
influence of Aristotelian philosophy on Medieval discussions of Fortuna will be 
treated in another paper. 

57 “Tn like manner, those things only are fatal and according to Fate, which are 
the consequences of causes preceding in the divine disposition.” Ibid. 

58 “Wherefore chance is common to things inanimate, as well as to those 
which are animated; whereas Fortune is proper to man only, who has his actions 
voluntary.” Ibid. 

58 One can parallel the methods of divination with this. Astrology and the 
predictions of soothsayers are ways of getting in touch with the great scheme of 
the universe, methods of discovering the plan; lots, geomancy, fortune-telling in 
general, aim to fit haphazard media to a haphazard order. See Pliny, NV. H., 2, 
23, ‘‘Pars alia et hanc pellit astroque,” etc. 


148 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


Fortuna; to defy her. The philosopher then stepped in, and 
added that it was easy to defy her because Fortune had no power 
over the mind. And he went even further; he said that Fortune 
controlled only worldly affairs, that virtue was truly free. 

(1) Of the first kind of remedy, which opposes patience to 
Fortuna, we have plenty of examples. I shall call it the remedy 
of fortitude: 

Virgil (Aen. V, 710): 
Quidquid erit; superanda omnis fortuna ferendo est. 
Ovid (Metam. VI, 195): 
Major sum, quam cui possit fortuna nocere. 
Seneca (Medea, 159): 
Fortuna fortes metuit, ignavos premit. 
With this idea another is naturally harmonious, that Fortune is in 
the power of the courageous; and so the theme develops ‘‘Fortune 
aids the bold”’: 


“Terence (Phormio I, 4, 26): 
Fortis Fortuna adjuvat. 


Virgil (Aen. X, 284): 
Audentes fortuna juvat. 


Livy (Histor. VIII, 29): 
Eventus docuit fortes fortunam juvare.® 


(2) The method of opposing the intellect to the disorder of 
Fortuna, which we may call the remedy of prudence, is found in 
the sneers of the philosophers at the belief in her.® See, for 
example, Plutarch’s discussion: 


Εἰ yap ταῦτα γίγνεται διὰ τύχην, TL κωλύει Kal Tas γαλᾶς καὶ τοὺς 
τράγους καὶ τοὺς πιθήκους συνέχεσθαι φάναι διὰ τύχην ταῖς λιχνείαις καὶ 


60 566 also Ovid, Ex Pont. II, 111,11. 51; Ennius (Mueller), Annales 257; with the 
opposition of animus to F.: Seneca, Epistola XCVIII, 7 and 2; ad Polyb. Consol. 
XXIII ff.; de Prov. VI, 5; Medea, 1.176. Acase where F. wins the struggle is found 
in Virgil, Aeneid, V, 22. 

1 See also Claudian, Ep. III, 9; Cf. Ovid (Metam. X, 586) with the familiar 
“‘Audentes deus ipse juvat.” It is, of course, akin to the proverb “‘God helps 
those who help themselves.” 


82 See Pliny, p. 135 above. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 149 


ταῖς akpactats καὶ ταῖς Bwmoroxtas; and again: dre yap τούτοις βραχεῖα 
τις παρεμπίπτει τύχη, τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα καὶ μέγιστα τῶν ἔργων αἱ τέχναι 
συντελοῦσι δι᾽ αὑτῶν, etc. 


These passages obviously limit the field of Fortuna’s operation. 
In the second it is implied that man has certain qualities not 
under the control of the goddess. Such limitation is accomplished 
by the speculation of the philosopher; and by his very attitude 
reason is opposed to the whims of chance. The philosopher thus 
puts certain things out of Fortuna’s control. 

So Juvenal (Satira X, 363): 


Monstro quod ipse tibi possis dare, semita certe 
tranquillae per virtutem patet unica vitae. 
Nullum numen habes si sit prudentia, nos te, 
nos facimus, Fortuna, deam caeloque Jocamus.’’® 


(3) This passage implies what the next step was to be. The 
philosopher proceeded to state clearly just what things were out 
of the control of Fortuna; and her cults reveal that the things 
within her control were conceived chiefly as external (not moral) 
gifts. In the golden age, which was likely to foster materialistic 
desires, the men went on voyages to gain wealth, and the dominat- 
ing interest of the time was luxury. It does not appear that 
anyone went to Fortuna for spiritual advancement. She was 
not the goddess of the soul, but of worldly interests alone. For 
evidence of this characteristic, recall merely the frequent repetition 
of the great Fortuna theme: 


6 “And if such things as these can come by Fortune, what hinders but that we 
may as well plead that cats, goats, and monkeys are constrained by Fortune to be 
ravenous, lustful, and ridiculous?” Trans. Baxter, Goodwin ed., Plutarch, de 
Fortuna (1), Frgt. 2, Chaeremon. 


“For that there falls in but little of Fortune to an expert artist, whether 
founder or builder, but that the most and greatest part of their workmanship is 
performed by mere art,” etc. Jbid., Plutarch, de Fortuna (4), Frgt. 2, Chaeremon. 


δ: “What I show 
Thyself may freely on thyself bestow; 
Fortune was never worship’d by the wise 
But, set aloft by fools, usurps the skies,” 
Dryden. 


150 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


Mortalem summum fortuna repente 
reddidit e summo regno ut famul infimus esset.® 


She dispenses worldly honors. Those who would escape from her 
control can do so merely by cultivating an interest in virtue. 
This I shall call the spiritual remedy against Fortune. Take, for 
instance, the discussion in Seneca: 
(de Constantia Sapientio, V, 2) 
Nihil eripit fortuna, nisi quod dedit: virtutem autem non dat. 
(Ep. LXXIV, 1) 

“Unum Bonum esse, quod Honestum est.” Nam, qui alia 
bona judicat, in fortunae venit potestatem, alieni arbitrii fit.§7 
The man who does not seek virtue, then, exposes himself to the 
power of fortune and has no just cause for complaint. 

Such are the three great remedies of Roman thought for the 
adversities of Fortune: the remedy of fortitude, that of prudence, 
and, finally, that of spiritual devotion. For the development of 
these remedies Stoicism was probablyresponsible. They correspond 
to the virtues of power, wisdom, and religious idealism: those 
respectively of the body, the mind, and the soul. We may observe 
that the more complete they are, the nearer they approach 
an annihilation of the goddess.** If she were really conceived of 
as a ruler of the universe, it would be vain to oppose her with any 
means, certainly with that of ordinary endurance. If it is possible 
to overcome her with intellectual powers, the fact implies another 
god in the universe who has a sense of order, to which your reason 
may find clues. Finally, if we hold that by seeking virtue and 
neglecting the interests of Fortuna we may escape from her 
control, we are really presupposing a spiritual universe subject to 
an altogether different deity. 


6 Ennius, Annal. ll. 312. ‘The most exalted of mortals, F. hath on a sudden 
brought from supreme power to be the most abject of slaves.” Cf. Sallust (Cat. δ); 
Horace (I, XXXV); Nepos, (Dion. 6). Compare, too, in this discussion of the 
relation of F. to virtue the lines already quoted (Seneca, Phaedrus, 981 ff.): 

Vincit sanctos dira libido, 
fraus sublimi regnat in aula. 


67 See also Seneca, Phaedrus 978; Cicero, de Leg. ii, 28: “Bene vero quod 
Mens, Pietas,” etc., where the virtues and fortune are distinguished. 


68 Cf. Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity, p. 77. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 15 
ΠῚ 


We have now defined ‘“‘the pagan Fortuna” and have observed 
how she was treated in general and how accepted. Our next 
problem is to see what in detail Roman literature offers for the 
imaginative representation of the goddess, and what for the 
application to everyday life. That is, I shall now study: (1) the 
personal description of the goddess; (2) favorite themes in her 
depiction; and (3) the divisions of her cult, and how they were 
applied to everyday life. 

Much of the description of Fortuna is an old story to us because 
the tradition has lasted even to our day. It is interesting to see 
the same expressions used in ancient Rome which are used now. 
(1) She is blind (caeca);® (2) yet she uses her eyes sometimes;”” 
(3) she stands unsteadily—often on a globe;”! (4) she walks un- 
steadily;72 (5) she remains in no place for long;’* (6) her face 
is sometimes joyful, sometimes bitter; (7) she is subject to 
envy;” (8) she becomes a foe; (9) she is stubborn;’’ (10) she 
goes on her own course;’® (11) she plays games, and men are the 
figures in the games, or the objects of her mirth;’? (12) she wounds 
men with her shafts;8® (13) she holds dialogues with men;*! 
(14) she is a harlot (meretrix) ;* (15) she is a frail (fragilis), untrust- 
worthy acquaintance; (16) much depends on her smile;* (17) 


69 See Pliny, NV. H. 2, 22; Pacuvius (Ribbeck, 365-375). 

70 See Apuleius, Metam. XI, 15; Ovid, Ex Pont. III, I, 125. 

τι Pacuvius, op. cit. 

7 Ovid, Tristia V, VIII, 15 ff. 

73 7014; Ausonius (Peiper) XXIII, X, p. 424. 

14 Τ 74. 

% Virgil, Aen. XI, 43; Lucan, Phars. I, 82 ff. 

7% Ovid, Ex Pont. III, I, 152. Cf. Plautus, Asinaria 727. 

“Ovid, Ex Pont. IV, V1, 7. 

78 Ovid, Epist. XV, 59-60; Lucan, Phars. I, 226; cf. Tibullus, ΠῚ, iii, 22. 

79 Seneca, Ep. LXXIV, 6-7; Horace, Carm. III, XXTX, 49; Juvenal III, 
38 ff. 

80 Ovid, Ex. Pont. II, VII, 15, 41. 

81 Cf. Seneca, ad Polyb. Cons. XXII, 4. 

82 See, for a beginning of the idea, her relations with Servius Tullius, Ovid, 
Fasti VI, 569 ff. See Diibner, Anthol. Palat., II, 269. 

83 Baehrens, Poet. Lat. Min., IV, p. 148, 145; Lucan, Phars. VII, 685. 

4 Ovid, Trist. I, V, 27. 


152 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


she controls animals—a lion, horses,“ the geese of Rome.*® Such 
are some of the traits and habits of which we hear in connection 
with her.* 

The themes in the treatment of the goddess are those expres- 
sions and phrases that particularly found favor in describing her, 
either because they seemed most characteristic, or because they 
offered formulae which were easy for literary tradition. Probably 
those which combined both qualities survived the longest. The 
most common of these I shall enumerate as follows: 

1. Nunc—nunc: 
Horace (Carm., III, X XIX, 51-52): 
Transmutat incertos honores, 
nunc mihi, nunc alii benigna. 


2. The adversities which she brings expose our true friends to us. 
“Α friend in need” theme: 


Est equidem in laetis nemo non promptus amicus, 
ipsa homini adversis umbra inimica sua est.*8 


3. The theme of tragedy. Those who are most exalted are 
brought low,*® and in this process she does not discriminate: 


Evertisque bonos, erigis improbos, 
nec servare potes muneribus fidem. 
Fortuna immeritos auget honoribus, 
Fortuna innocuos cladibus adficit. 
Tustos illa viros pauperie gravat, 
indignos eadem divitiis beat. 

Haec aufert iuvenes ac retinet senes, 
iniusto arbitrio tempora dividens. 
Quod dignis adimit, transit ad impios. 
nec descrimen habet rectave iudicat.*° 


85 Roscher, 1556; N. E. Lemaire, Poet. Lat. Min., II, p. 298, xii, 1. 2. 

86 See Plutarch, de Fort. Rom., (12). 

87 There are others, such as the accusation that she is insane, Pacuvius 
(Ribbeck, 365-375); that she is a Will-o’-the wisp, Ovid, Trist. I, IX, 13. See the 
useful study by Canter, especially pp. 72 ff., adding to the list of epithets in Carter. 

88 Lemaire, Poet. Lat. Min., vol. I, p. 298, xii, ll. 7-8. See also Ovid, Ex 
Pont. I, III, 23; I, ἘΧ 16; Trist. ΤΙ, 85; Ex Pont. IV, I. 

88 See p. 150 and n. 66. 

8° Baehrens, Poet. Lat. Min., IV, p. 148, no. 145. See also Pacuvius, (Ribbeck, 
365-375). 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 153 


The simple theme of falling from a high station is very frequent: 
Me qui liber fueram servom fecit, e summo infimum.*! 
Sometimes Fortuna acts in just punishment of unwonted pride. 
This, of course, is not consistent with the pagan Fortuna, but is 
quite consistent with pagan gods in general, who punish ὕβρις: 

Ovid (Trist. V, VIII, 7): 
Nec metuis dubio Fortunae stantis in orbe 
numen, et exosae verba superba deae? 


When Fortune thus hates man’s sinful pride, her feelings may 
lead her to better practices and a higher course of life. 
4. Closely related with the theme of tragedy is that of Fortune’s 
gifts to the poor, and her punishment of the rich: 
πῶς τοὺς πένητας πλουσίους ἐργάζεται, 
καὶ τοὺς ἔχοντας χρημάτων ἀποστερεῖ."" 
Ovid treats this motif, referring to the case of Croesus, which was 
to become the example par excellence in the Middle Ages: 
Trisi. IIT, VII, 41— 
Nempe dat id quodcumque libet fortuna, rapitque: 
irus et est subito, qui modo Croesus erat.*? 


Such are some of the most important themes which went down 
in Roman tradition as particular moulds for the thought con- 
cerning Fortuna. 


The divisions of her great cult, or, as they are sometimes called, 
the smaller cults, have been pretty thoroughly investigated by 
students of the subject. I shall not list them here; for my obser- 
vations do not concern such aspects as we find revealed in Fortuna 
Bona, Fortuna Obsequens, and Fortuna Felix, but the specific 
functionary cults.“ The question is, what was the significance of 
these to the daily life of the Roman? What do the cult-names 
and activities (so far as we know anything about them)tell us of 
Fortuna’s practical functions in Roman life? We may reduce 


% Plautus, Captivt 305. See also Horace, Carm. I, XXXV, ll. 3; Juvenal 
(7, 194 ff.): “de rhetore consul, de consule rhetor;’’ Ausonius (Peiper) p. 424, 
XXIII, X, “et summa in imum vertit ac versa erigit.”” The wheel often comes 
full circle: Juvenal, IIT, 39, ‘“quales ex humili,” etc. 

® Dibner, Anthol. Pal., II, 269, cap. X, 96, from Palladas. 

83 See also Ex Ponto, IV, III, ll. 37; Trist. V, XIV, 29-30. 

“In the appendix will be found a list of most of the cults from Roscher, 
1508 ff.; Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 16 ff. See Appendix D to this chapter. 


154 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


the practical meaning of many of the cognomina to that of good 
or bad Fortune. Fortuna Viscata implies merely the characteristic 
of the deity to lure. In Fortuna Populi Romani and Fortuna 
Publica Citerior we have practically a goddess of the city, which 
is what the Fortuna Populi Romani Quiritium Primigenia really is. 
With this kind of deity belongs that of the different classes, such 
as Fortuna Mammosa of the lower class, the Fortuna of the 
guilds, and the like. Secondly, we have Fortuna concerned with 
love and marriage,—for example, in Fortuna Virilis, to whom 
women sacrificed on April first (as it happened, the same day as 
that of a festival of Venus). Variously related are the Fortuna 
Barbata and Fortuna Muliebris—the former, the Fortuna of 
growing youths; the latter, of grateful mothers.* Third, we have 
the deity who guides—Fortuna Dux*? and Fortuna Redux.® 
These two were imperial in origin, and concerned particularly with 
guiding Augustus across the sea.°? There are two concerns here, 
then,—Fortuna, the guide; and Fortuna of the sea. Fifth, 
Fortuna of the individual.—that is, the Fortuna of the royal 
house, which was a specialization of the goddess of the different 
classes;!°° and also, perhaps, of such cults as Fortuna Obsequens 
and Fortuna Conservatrix and even Fortuna Domestica. Sixth, 
there is another function of the goddess implied in references to 
her, if not set forth in a separate cult,—the Fortuna of war.'" 
It is she who confers the laurel of victory. 

The actual cults are referred to in literature with the specific 
names. We have references to such as Fortuna Huiusce Diei, 
Fortuna Spes, Fortuna Respiciens, Fortuna Primigenia, Fortuna 


% See Roscher, 1518. Gaidoz cites Wieseler, de Scala, pp. 16-17, as con- 
jecturing that F. came from an Asiatic Venus. See Appendix C to this chapter. 

96 Roscher, 1519. 

917 Roscher, 1528. 

98 Roscher, 1525. 

99 See the symbol of the Rudder and the Prow. See Roscher, 1504-7. 

100 See the golden image in the sleeping chamber of Marcus Aurelius, Roscher 
1524. ‘Dem allgemeinen Glauben folgend verehrten auch die Kaiser ihre eigene 
Fortuna als persénliche Schutzgottin,” Roscher, 1523. See also F. Privata, 
Roscher, 1518. 

101 See, Roscher 1516, Tuditanus and the Temple of F. Primigenia; Roscher, 
1526, altars raised at the victory of the Emperor. In 89 B. C. on the return of 
Domitian from Germany, a temple of Fortuna Redux was erected on the Field of 
Mars. Roscher 1540: “Nicht selten findet sich Fortuna mit den Gottheiten des 
Krieges und Sieges, Mars und Victoria, verbunden.” 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 155 


Obsequens, and others.!° More interesting still we have the 
literary reflection of some of these cults without the name actually 
mentioned. In other words, we can observe Fortuna at work: 
Fortuna of the city: 
Regnum Trojae, quocumque volet, Fortuna ferat.1% 
Quae fortuna sit urbi.!4 
Fortuna of the sea: 
Dum mea puppis erat valida fundata carina, 
qui mecum velles currere, primus eras. 
Nunc, quia contraxit vultum Fortuna, recedis 
auxilio postquam scis opus esse tuo, etc.!% 


In these treatments Fortuna generally seems to control the ship 
from a port of vantage behind the wind and storm. 
Fortuna of war: 

Illum tamen Fortuna jactavit diu 

terra marique per graves belli vices.!% 
Fortuna, bestowing victory, consequently bestowed fame: 

Non ita se nobis praebet fortuna secundam, 

ut tibi sit ratio laudis habenda tuae.!%7 


These are the more important groups. I do not include the lesser 
classifications, such as the early Fortuna of the harvest;!°8 Fortuna 
the bestower of riches.!°? All these references simply show that 
it was natural, when the Roman thought of the goddess, to think 


102 Cicero, de Leg. II, 28; Plautus, Asinaria 716, Rudens 501. See partic. 
Ovid in the Fasti (VJ, 569, 771 ff.) See also Lucan, Pharsalia II, 193, for Prae- 
neste. 

103 Seneca, Troades 735. 

14 Aen. J, 454; see also Aen. VI, 62; Ovid, Metam. XIII, 435; Lucan, Phars. 
1250: 

1% Ovid, Ex Pont. IV, III, ll. 5; see also Seneca, ad Marc. Consol. XXVI, 1 
(nescis quantis f. procellis disturbet omnia?); Lucan, Phars. VIII, 313; Ovid, 
Trist. V, XII, 5, F. herself is blown by the winds; storm, Ovid, Ex Pont. II, III, 
25. πὶ 

106 Seneca, Octavia 479-80; Ovid, Metam. X, 603; Virgil, Aen. XT, 108; IV, 
603; Lucan, Phars. IV, 711-12. The expression fortuna belli, without personi- 
fication, occurs of course: Seneca, Phoenisse 1. 629; Ovid, Metam. VIII, 12; 
XIII, 90; Lucan, Phars. IV, 402. 

107 Ovid, Trést. I, I, 51; see also IV, III, 81; V, XIV, 3. 

108 With the cornucopia, which was very popular and was frequently pictured 
in art. See many references in Roscher, 1503 ff. and passim; see also Columella 
(de Cultu Hort., X, 311). 

109 See p. 153, §4, above. 


156 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


of her in connection with one of the well-known cults, operating 
in her special function. 


IV. 


We are now ready to complete our idea of the Roman Fortuna 
by examining briefly the religious background of the period. 
I have already noticed that by the end of the second Punic War 
the old gods of Rome were defunct, or else disguised in new figures, 
with the exception of a very few, such as Vesta, Janus, the Lares, 
and Jupiter."° Religion declined with the introduction of a 
large number of foreign gods, nearly all of which were adopted 
more out of policy than conviction." With the increase of 
campaigns and the growth of interest in the foreign world, Rome 
felt the need of the support of all the ruling spirits, and would 
sacrifice to any god if help were to be obtained. So came the 
popularity of the haruspices, the use of lots. Divination became 
wide-spread. And with this comes the “separation of religion 
from morality.’? At the time of the Second Punic War a 
new wave swept over the country, and Ennius introduced the 
Epicurean Philosophy. While before, the gods were still of 
interest to man because they could predict the future to him 
(although they were less concerned with his moral state), now 
they were entirely indifferent to him—and he to them; and about 
their misdoings the Roman began to make jests.!% Later Stoicism 
reduced all deities to one, but at least gave that one power and 
lite + 

It is natural that when the interest in divination and augury 
was strong, Fortuna should gain in power and take an important 
place if she had not assumed it before."®° The convenient oracle of 
Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, with its fortune-telling lots, is 
enough to explain that. And later, when an interest in the 
mystical gained strength,"® ‘“‘The growing interest in Fortuna, 


110 Wissowa, R. K., p. 56; Fowler, Relig. Exper., 248 ff. 

111 See above, p. 139 and note 28. 

12 See for a full and interesting discussion, Fowler, Relig. Exper., 292; also. 
Carter, the Relig. Life of Anc. Rome, ch. JI. 

113 See Fowler, Relig. Exper., 352, with ref. to the A mphitruo of Plautus. 

14 Fowler, ibid., 362 ff. 

116 See p. 147 note 59, above. 

16 Fowler, Relig. Exper., 380 ff. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 157 


both as a natural force and deity, which became intense under the 
Empire, is another indication” of that tendency as well.!” 

When Augustus was trying to revive the old gods and establish 
the new, refounding the colleges of priests, and showing an interest 
in the old feast-days,"8 he did not feel a need to add strength to 
Fortuna; but involuntarily he did adopt her as his own, and 
formed his own cult.!° It is, in a way, an age of great religious 
interest; a wide and scattered, but not a deep, interest. There 
was suspicion about the unknown. Signs of the decadence are 
visible, for example, in the orgies of the Magna Mater.!22 From 
one point of view, it is an age of pure superstition; from another, 
that of unbounded imagination, a zest for the unknown, a shining 
enthusiasm for the new. It is a virile, physically active, but 
romantic age. 

As one views the situation, one will describe it with one’s own 
terminology and call it decadent or golden. In either case let us 
remember its wealth in literary activity and in military prow- 
ess. Let us also bear in mind its lack of a clearly systematized 
philosophy. It was trying its own mental resources vainly and 
needed a revelation. It was a Renaissance and Reformation in 
need of the Middle Ages. At such a time it is natural that 
Fortuna, the goddess of chance should prevail over the god of order 
and rationality. 

Heitland’s summary of the situation is as follows: “The decay 
of the public religion had little or no effect upon popular supersti- 
tion; indeed the growth of disbelief in divine interference had 
rather cleared the ground for the worship of Fortune.’ And 
Carter says: “1 was only the growth of skepticism, the failure of 
faith to bear up under the apparently contradictory lessons of 
experience, which brought into being in the Alexandrian age 
Tyche, the goddess of chance, the winged capricious deity poised 
on the ball. It is this habit of thought which eventually gave 
the Romans that idea of Fortuna which has become our idea 


17 Fowler, ibid., pp. 396-7. 


18 Wissowa, R. K., 73 ff.; Fowler, Relig. Exper., 428 ff., “The Augustan Re- 
vival.” 


119 See for discussion of personal cults p. 154, above. 
20 Fowler, Relig. Exper., 330 ff. 
121 Heitland, 11, 464, §872. 


158 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


because it is the prevalent one in Roman literature and life in the 
periods with which we are most familiar.’’!” 


We 


The points thus far discussed, I may briefly summarize as 
follows: (1) whatever her origin, Fortuna flourished in Rome, and 
attained her fullest development under the Empire; (2) this is due 
to the fact that during the early Empire there was the greatest 
emphasis on the unknown; (3) she absorbed the functions of many 
of the other gods; (4) particular themes were used in her literary 
treatment; (5) her vitality grew the stronger as Roman religion 
decayed and fell to pieces. These facts make her survival in a 
monotheistic period seem at least possible and comprehensible. 
She was the last of the gods, and consequently retained most of 
their radiance, while the rest faded in twilight.’8 She flourished 
on the skepticism which might corrode any well organized religion. 
She appealed to man in moments of his greatest weakness and 
greatest strength. Her variety appealed to poetic fancy. The 
tenacity of her hold on the popular mind worried the philosophers. 
Such are her charms in Rome;!*4 and with such brilliance the 
long pageant of her career begins. 


122 Carter, Relig. of Numa, pp. 50 fi. 


123 ‘Tn tutelam iam receptus es Fortunae, sed videntis; quae suae lucis splen- 
dore ceteros etiam deos illuminat,”’ Apuleius, Metam. XI, 15. This is written con- 
cerning the Isis-Fortuna. 


124 Fowler has written a full and interesting article on Fortuna in Rome for 
Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VI, pp. 98 ff. He attacks the 
problem from a point of view entirely different from that in the present study. 
But while his results are somewhat different from mine, since he deals with the 
problem of individual faith, nothing that he says tends to obscure the fact of the 
enormous power of the worship in this period. 


CHAPTER II 
THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION 


The actual change of philosophy and religion in Rome from 
paganism to Christianity is a highly complicated process. The 
change is not merely external, as might be inferred, for example, 
from the destruction of old idols and fanes, and worship at new 
temples on a new feast-day. It is spiritual, and it involves the 
larger question of how far spiritual man can really change from 
age to age; whether man intellectually and morally does change. 

If we are to believe that Fortuna ceased to exist as a power 
at the beginning of the new era, we must consider whether man 
can change so completely as to drop an old creed in every detail 
and take upanew. Evidence of a complete or of a partial change 
will have to be found, of course, in conscious confession of one 
kind or another; but not exclusively. Man gives indications of his 
beliefs unconsciously in other ways. His chief interests, what he 
talks most about and recurs to in case of need, what he declares 
in a moment of sudden surprise,—these are the kinds of data that 
give more positive information. Rome laid aside paganism and 
adopted Christianity according to Rome’s professed faith; but 
for a study of the actual faith of the Roman people, we must 
practically disregard the official declaration and look further. 

This way of dealing with the problem seems a trifle impudent. 
It is not so impudent, however, to believe that man’s religion is 
more enduring than the lives of his philosophers, that it lies 
deeper in his heart of hearts than impulsive consciousness. More- 
over, it is characteristic of man, when he faces a new creed, to 
accept its main tenets and let them work out their own consist- 
encies in his soul. The smaller details will follow later. He 
is unable to grasp them all at once, no matter how clear their 
truth may be, and he certainly cannot instantly put them in 
working order. The religion of human life is greater than deliber- 
ate philosophy; the religion that really damns or saves is partly de- 
pendent on ancient mental habit. 


159 


160 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


It cannot be expected, then, that the Romans would immedi- 
ately lay aside every vestige of their old faith and take up the new, 
tabula rasa. Was not the Roman of the fifth century very much 
the same sort of man inwardly, with much the same sort of capaci- 
ties amd limitations, as the man of the Augustan age? Would he 
not feel the dangers of a long voyage, or the risk of a great experi- 
ment in the unknown? His new religion might give him comfort, 
but he would first feel the desire for it. One must therefore ask 
whether the Roman really discarded all of his old mental habits 
when he laid aside their outward signs. Did he always faithfully 
employ the possibilities of his new religion? Christianity upheld 
the one God; and the Christian Roman must cleave to the one 
God and forsake the old deities entirely. Could he as a man, 
in his moments of weakness, hold to the belief in this great, personal 
rational Deity, whose scheme included him and all the details of 
his life? Could he feel that he was cared for at every moment 
by the one God? It seems more reasonable to think that, in 
certain emergencies, he would create for himself the gods he was 
fitted by character to create; and that, as these gods approached 
the Christian conception, so he himself became more of a Christian. 
From another point of view, he would retain the old gods that were 
familiar to him, even if he did not give them their old names. 

This, at any rate, is the postulate on which the proposition 
of a continued life for the goddess Fortuna from paganism to 
Christianity depends. Her vitality, if real, indicates that man 
in any period is after all pretty much the same. Whatever the 
variation of customs and styles, the church pagan or Christian 
labored with mankind and the human soul, and not with theories. 
At one time it might be legitimate to believe in the element of 
chance: at another time, it might be heretical; but the belief itself 
could persist as long as man remained man. One comment on the 
early state of things is that of Cumont: ‘‘Tyche, or deified fortune, 
became the irresistible mistress of mortals and immortals alike, 
and was even worshiped exclusively by some under the empire. 
Our deliberate will never plays more than a very limited part in our 
happiness and success, but, among the pronunciamentos and in the 
anarchy of the third century, blind chance seemed to play with 
the life of every one according to its fancy, and it can easily be 


4 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 161 


understood that the ephemeral rulers of that period, like the 
masses, saw in chance the sovereign disposer of their fates.’’! 

The possibility of faith in Fortuna is obviously not limited 
to Rome. A belief in a goddess of chance is possible anywhere; 
and a belief in Fortuna is possible wherever Roman civilization 
extended itself. This is another phase of the transition. Cumont 
goes on to say: “In Latin Europe in spite of the anathemas of the 
church the belief remained confusedly alive all through the 
Middle Ages that on this earth everything happens somewhat 

‘Per ovra delle rote magne.’ ’” 

This survival in the Middle Ages is indicated, as we shall see, 
by frequent references to Fortuna; by the stern attitude of the 
Church, which proves that the belief was felt to be a real menace; 
and by the methods with which the Church faced the problem. 

The appearance of the goddess in the fourth and fifth centuries, 
with the trappings that are familiar to us as hers in ancient Rome 
(or, as I shall call this continuation of the old cult, ‘‘the pagan 
tradition’’), is perhaps the most important fact for us to consider 
in our whole study of Fortuna. For this is the persistence of the 
goddess of chance. She survived in early Christian times and her 
worship was an integral part of the still flourishing pagan religion. 
Christianity was already in the ascendant; but polytheism had not 
yet yielded, and the Church Fathers were opposing it with all their 
strength. Again, Fortuna is frequently met with in literary 
works from the fourth century to Dante and beyond. Finally, 
she plays an important part in the continued custom of divination 
or fortune-telling. Through these channels the pagan deity 
found access to the stream of Medieval tradition and to the 
knowledge of the ordinary man of the Middle Ages. The un 
learned as well as the learned could hear of her, and become 
acquainted with her characteristics. 

The early fathers show that they knew the worship well as a 
recognized part of that pagan religion which had not been quite 
discountenanced. The actual cults are mentioned,—in Tertullian, 
for example, that of Fortuna Barbata,’ and Fortuna Muliebris.* 


1Cumont, 179. He says that the view spread from Babylonia and imposed 
itself even on Islam. 

2 Tbid., 179, ff, 

3 Migne, Tertull. I, 601, Ad Nationes II, 11. 

4 Migne, Tertull. IT, 952, Series II, xvii, Moralia, Lib. de Monog. 


162 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


Arnobius describes: ““Mulciber fabrili cum habitu; aut fortuna 
cum cornu, pomis, ficis, aut frugibus autumnalibus pleno.” 
Lactantius gives an ample discussion of the worship; specifically of 
Fortuna Muliebris, and Fortuna Dux; and retells the story of the 
Censor Fulvius, who stole marble tiles from the temple of the 
Lacinian Juno for the temple of Fortuna Equestris.£ St. Augus- 
tine touches on Fortuna Muliebris and Fortuna Barbata.7?. These 
passages in St. Augustine bring us down to the fifth century after 
Christ. 

The pagan tradition of Fortuna is necessarily involved in the 
continued practice of divination. Fortuna in the old Latin 
worship at Praeneste had consented to give oracular utterance. 
Her will and decrees were interpreted by means of drawing lots.® 
As late as the fourth century, Lactantius reports an image of 
Fortune which spoke: ‘“Illud etiam mirabile, quod simulacrum 
Fortunae muliebre non semel locutum esse traditur.”’? And St. 
Augustine has perhaps the same image in mind when he says: 
“Quod illa dea locuta est, quae fortuitu accidit, non quae meritis 
venit.’’!° 

Both oracle and fortune-telling are means of consulting the 
ruling goddess on the future; but the medium of communication 
in the latter is different. Fortune-telling attempts to read 
haphazard destiny by fitting to it an instrument of expression 
the very operation of which involves a large element of chance. 
Apparently the theory is that the goddess who delights in chance 
will consent to reveal her intentions by allowing the proper lot 
to be drawn or the proper card to appear, because these methods 
defy reason and order. 

In the seventh century St. Eligius denounces divination and 
fortune-telling with no uncertain words: “Ante omnia autem 
illud denuntio atque contestor, ut nullus paganorum sacrilegas 


5 Migne, Arnobius, V, 1214, Adversus Gentes, Lib. Sextus. See also V, 912. 

6 Migne, Lactantius, VI, 289, 290. See ref. to F. Dux, Lactantius VI, 442. 

7 Migne, St. Aug., XLI (126 f.), De Civ. Dei, 4, 19; XLI (122), 4, 11. The dis- 
cussion of F. Barbata is delightful: ‘“Ipse sit et Fortuna Barbata, quae adultos bar- 
ba induat; quos honorare noluerunt, ut hoc qualecunque numen saltem masculum 
deum, vel a barba Barbatum sicut a nodis Nodutum, vel certe non Fortunam, sed 
quia barbas habet, Fortunium nominarent.” Cf. Migne, Lactantius, VI, 440. 

8 Roscher, 1544. 

9 Migne, Lactantius, VI, 289. 

10 Migne, St. Aug., XLI (127) De Civ. Dei, 4, 19. 


v 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 163 


consuetudines observetis, non caragos, non divinos, non sortilogos, 
non praecantatores, nec pro ulla causa aut infirmitate eos consulere 
vel interrogare praesumatis, quia qui facit hoc malum, statim 
perdit baptismi sacramentum.’"! He warns against holding 
pagan festivals, carrying on the pagan practices, invoking the 
pagan gods (as when the moon darkens), and visiting pagan fanes: 
‘‘Nullus sibi proponat fatum vel fortunam aut genesim, quod vulgo 
nascentia dicitur, ut dicat, qualem nascentia attulit, taliter erit: 
quia Deus omnes homines vult salvos fiert et ad agnitionem veri- 
tatis venire adque omnia in sapientia dispensat, sicut disposuit ante 
constitutionem mundi.’!2 The pagans were not dead yet! 
Discussions of divination do not cease nor fortune telling with 
them even to our own enlightened day. It is not suprising that 
Aristotle was held to be a specialist in the craft and knew: 
With other Crafftys which that be secre, 
Calculacioun and Geomancye, 
Difformacyouns of Circes and meede, 
lokyng of ffacys and piromancye.”’ 

Fortune-telling, it is particularly important to note, would 
naturally appeal to the lower classes rather than to the higher. 
And this appeal, like that of the cults in the Roman worship of 
Fortuna (after the worship was officially smothered), would 
continue the pagan tradition so that it could smoulder without 


4 Professor John Livingston Lowes of Harvard University drew my attention 
to this passage. (Monumenta Germaniae Histor., Scriptorum Rerum Merov., IV, 
Bruno Krusch, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum, etc., Vitae Elig., ΤΙ, 165, p. 705.) 

12 Thid, p. 707, il. 9. 

13 For later ref. see: geomancy, Dante, Purg. XIX, 4, “Fortuna Major,” 
(discuss. Academy, Nov. 3, 1894, p. 352, W. W. Skeat; suppl. discuss. Acad., Jan. 
1895, p. 39, R. Brown.) And Troilus and Criseyde, III, 1420; Dunbar, ed. John 
Small, Scottish Text Soc., 1893, vol. I, p. 62, line 79, (Ballad of Lord Bernard Stew- 
art). See, in general: Vincent of Beauvais, Spec. Histor., I, c. x; (sortilegium) Ray- 
mund of Pennaforte, Summula Raymundi, (Cologne, 1502), fol. cxxvi-cxxvii; Robert 
Holcot, Sup. libr. sap., lectio CLIT (et tunc fantasia format sibi consilia idola, etc.); 
Guillaume de Guileville, Peler. de l’}Omme, ff. lxxii (Geomancie, Idolatrie, 
Sortileige, and Sorcerie appear); Eustache Deschamps, ed. Soc. Anc. Textes 
Francais, VII, 192 ff., (MCCCLXI), see p. 197: ‘““Mais communement tous 
ceuls qui par telz ars s’esforcent de scavoir les fortunes advenir,” etc.; Henryson, 
ed. Ὁ. Laing, Edinburgh, 1865, Orph. and Eur., lines 571 ff. See the actual “wheel 
of fortune-telling” discussed by Max Forster, Herrig’s Archiv fiir das Studium der 
neueren Sprachen, vol. cxxix, §18, pp. 45-49. 

4 Lydgate, Secrees of Old Philos., ed. Steele, p. 16, st. 72. 


164 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


much disturbance as long as it remained hidden. The less culti- 
vated classes would not bother about discrepancies in their faith, 
and would hardly realize an intellectual heresy. 

The learned tradition is likely to be found in the literary 
world, where those who were acquainted with Classical literature 
took over the forms and mythology of that literature rather freely. 
In one sense the material here may not seem quite so significant, 
except as necessary concomitant evidence. If Fortuna has sur- 
vived, she must appear in this field along with the other gods. 
Yet there is argument to be drawn even from literature when the 
goddess appears in unexpected places, and when we find unusual 
devotion to what ought to be a mere poetic figure. After all, 
the literary treatment in ancient Rome is not very extensive; 
Fortuna is not described in long passages of elaborate detail. 
She was formally accepted as a deity, and the average author was 
not excited by the idea of a goddess of chance. In the Middle 
Ages, on the other hand, the author felt that she deserved special 
emphasis, partly, perhaps, because she was out of ecclesiastical 
favor, but more likely because he appreciated the opportunity 
for giving expression to what was a generally popular conception. 
And so the variety of ways in which she was mentioned, the space 
she occupies in literature, and the author’s kindled imagination in 
depicting her, are really of the greatest significance in our study. 


MARTIANUS CAPELLA 


In that elaborate allegory of Martianus Capella, De Nuptits 
Philologiae et Mercurii, which is almost the first of the truly 
Medieval allegories in method and style, Fortuna is introduced 
among the other Roman deities. She is the last to come to 
the council of the gods, who are convening to discuss the marriage. 
We must notice, first of all, the rich detail of her description and 
the reality of her appearance: 


Tunc etiam omnium garrula puellarum et contrario semper fluibunda luxu 
levitate pernix desultoria gestiebat. quam alii Sortem asserunt Nemesimque 
non nulli Tychenque quam plures aut Nortiam. haec autem quoniam gremio 
largiore totius orbis ornamenta portabat et aliis impertiens repentinis motibus con- 
ferebat rapiens his comas puellariter caput illis virga comminuens eisdemque 


15 Fourth and fifth centuries, A. D. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 165 


quibus fuerat eblandita ictibus crebris verticem complicatisque in condylos digitis 
vulnerabat.'® 


She is distinguished from the Fates by her desire to 
confuse their orderly arrangement of destiny: 


Haec mox Fata conspexit omnia quae gerebantur in Jovis consistorio subno- 
tare, ad eorum libros et pugillarem paginam cucurrit, et licentiore quadam fiducia 
quae conspexerat, inopinata descriptione corripuit, ut quaedam repente prorum- 
pentia velut rerum seriem perturbarent, alia vero, quae causarum ratio prospecta 
vulgaverat quoniam facere inprovisa non poterat suis tamen operibus arrogabat."” 


Martianus pauses to identify her with the various names by which 
she was evidently known. She was clearly no stranger. 


There are sporadic references to the pagan Fortuna down 
through the first part of the Middle Ages. Such are those, for 
example, in Pope Sylvester the Second (Gerbert of Aurillac) of 
the tenth century;!* in the twelfth century, in the two poems 
about the fall of the City of Milan at the hands of Frederic the 
First;!9 in Orderic Vitalis,2?° Walter Map,74 and Abelard and 
Heloise. In the minor poetry of the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries appear some long descriptions of Fortuna’s character 


16 Capella, ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 24, ll. 9(88); see also mention p. 18(55) and note. 
“Then too that chatterbox among women, ever abandoning herself to fickle pleasures, 
swift with lightness moved gaily shifting from one thing to another. Some 
call her Sors and some Nemesis, more Tyche or Nortia. Inasmuch as she bore 
in her ample bosom the glories of the whole world, and granted and bestowed them 
upon now one, now another with sudden movement, wresting from some their 
hair with girlish caprice, smashing the head of others with her wand, the same 
persons on whom she had bestowed her blandishments she would wound upon 
the head with frequent blows and with her fingers clenched.” For help in this 
translation 1 am indebted to Dr. Henry W. Litchfield. 


17 “When presently she beheld the Fates writing down all that went on in 
Jove’s council, she ran to their books and note-tablet, and with saucy boldness 
she swept together in unexpected order the things which she had seen done, with 
the result that certain events, bursting suddenly into being, confused as it were 
the orderly arrangement of events. Other events, again, which had been foretold 
by man’s perception of their causation, seeing that she could not make them unex- 
pected, nevertheless she claimed as works of her own.” 

18 Migne, cxxxix, col. 204, Ep. 12; also col. 214-15, Ep. 44, 45, 46. 

19 Neues Archiv, ΧΙ, 468: Gedicht auf die Zerst. Mail. See also Gesta di Frederi- 
co, ll. 1674, etc. 

20 Bouquet, Recwezl, XII, 723 C-D., Amalricus de Montfort. 

21 Map, ed. Thos. Wright, p. 2, etc. 

2 Migne, 179, col. 194, Ep. IV. 


166 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


and activities. For example, there is a poem (which was probably 
sung) in the form of a complaint to the pagan goddess: “Ὁ For- 
tuna quam sit mutabilis’”’— 
1. O varium 
Fortunae lubricum 
Dans dubium 
Tribunal judicum, 
Non modicum 
Paras huic praemium, 
Quem tollere 
Tua vult gratia 
Et petere 
Rotae similia, 
Dans dubia 
Tamen praepostere 
De stercore 
Pauperem erigens, 
De rhetore 
Consulem eligens.” 
The poem continues to summarize the traditional views concerning 
Fortuna: she fails her friends; what happened to Darius and 
Pompey? the higher they were, the harder they fell; what of 
Troy? of Carthage? andsoon. Also there are bits of poetry about 
the pagan Fortune in the Laborintus of Eberhardus (1212).4 
Poetry with plenty of traditional Fortune material is found 
in the drinking songs of the Carmina Burana. They have a genial 
tone, in spite of their theme of lament: 
O Fortuna 
velut luna 
statu variabilis 
semper crescis 
aut decrescis 
vita detestabilis 
nunc obdurat 


8 Dreves, Analecta Hymnica, XXI, p. 102, no. 152. Thirteenth Century; 
see note p. 103, Also in Carmina Burana, ed. Schmeller, LXXV, p. 45. 

* Leyser, Hisioria Poetar., p. 853. See also Geoffrey de Vinsauf, p. 864, 
ll. 60 (Noeva Poetria); p. 953 (1591). See also Jak. Werner, Beitrige zur kunde, 
etc., (ΧΙ Cent., see p. 1), 2, p. 3, ll. 18-19; 49, p. 23, Il. 13. See also Thos. Wright, 
Sat. ‘Pods τ p. 234, Ρ. 301 Geninineene of Ovid): 1 8:1!}Ὁ": 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 167 


et tunc curat 

ludo mentis aciem 
‘egestatem,’ 
potestatem 

dissolvit ut glaciem.” 


The song gives an account of the lady and her games, and regrets 
that she is contrary to mankind. Another interesting complaint 
is the following: 

1. Fortune plango vulnera 
stillantibus ocellis, 
quod sua mihi munera 
subtrahit rebellis; 
verum est quod legitur, 
fronte capillata 
sed plerumque sequitur 
Occasio calvata. 

2. In Fortune solio 
sederam elatus 
prosperitatis vario 
flore coronatus 
quicquid ‘tamen’ florui 
felix et beatus 
nunc a summo corrui 
gloria privatus. 

3. Fortune rota volvitur, 
descendo minoratus, 
alter in altum tollitur 
nimis exaltatus; 
rex sedet in vertice, 
caveat ruinam, 
nam sub axe legimus 
‘Hecubam’ reginam.”* 


These songs and complaints are important because they are much 
richer than the Roman descriptions of the goddess; and because 
they make frequent use of the direct apostrophe. By the thir- 


35 Carmina Burana, ed. Schmeller, (XIII Cent. MS.) no. 1, p. 1. Cf. Novati, 
Carmina Medii Aevi, Epigrammata, p. 44, VI. 

38 Carm. Bur. LXXVII, p. 47. See also LXXV, p. 45 (in part quoted above, 
p. 166); LX XVI, p. 47; and 78, p. 166 (st. 4); 114, p. 189 (st. 4); 174, p. 233 (st. 3); 
p. 234 (st. 5, 11). 


168 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


teenth century, then, the stock of formulae has been greatly 
increased. The authors take a sort of sentimental delight in 
dwelling on the hardships Fortuna has brought about. The 
tragic theme—“‘once I was in high estate, now I have fallen low” 
—is greatly elaborated.27 It seems possible that from this 
mass of songs and minor poems—almost jingles—developed many 
of the quick and ready formulae and the unending lists of para- 
doxes which form so large a part of the Medieval tradition. 


NIGELLUS WIREKER 


The Speculum Stultorum of Nigellus Wireker is such an impor- 
tant poem forthe Middle Ages from the time of its composition 
(the latter part of the twelfth century) down even to Chaucer’s 
day that it deserves special emphasis. It reflects the forms 
and substance of the contemporary portrayals of the goddess. 
Here, however, Fortuna is sometimes favorable. One must look 
out for her! Beas wary of good Fortune as of evil: 

Si fortuna modo gravis est, conversa repente 
Quod grave portamus alleviabit onus. 

Tempora labuntur, dominique cadunt, renovantur 
Servi, vulgus abit, area lata patet. 


Quae veniunt subito, subito quandoque recedunt; 
Prospera cum duris mixta venire solent. 
Fortuitos casus non est vitare volentum, 
Nemo futurorum praescius esse potest. 


ἘΠ ἘΠ π᾿ ἘΠ Ἐκ ce ΤῈ 


Casibus in laetis magis est metuanda voluptas 
Segnius in vitium tristia corda ruunt. 

Integra Troja fuit dum se suspectus utrimque 
Subtraxit durus hostis ab hoste suo. 


* * * * * * * * 


Si fortuna dedit dudum mihi dulcia, quare 
Dedigner sub ea paucula dura pati?”® 


Such are the ways afforded for a continuation of the pagan 
Fortuna in the records of the transitional period and later. They 


27 See early reference to complaints, etc., in Lactantius (Migne, VI, 438), 
Div. Inst., 1Π|, xxviii. 

28 Thos. Wright, Sat. Poets, I, pp. 21 ff. See also, p. 31; p. 61; (Ad Dom. Gul.) 
p. 234. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 169 


form a bridge for the difficult passage of the gap between paganism 
and Christianity. Fortuna retained her hold on the superstitious 
by bestowing her favor on divination and fortune-telling. Men 
might forget her for a while, but they would remember her again 
when they desired to learn about the future. She was a convenient 
figure for allegory, if the author was disposed to quarrel with 
what would ordinarily be attributed to the workings of the Fates. 
To the man who had a general complaint against his destiny, 
she probably seemed a deity to be found fault with less impiously 
than the Christian God. 

The great Medieval scholar, Graf, interpreted the situation in 
the following manner: “‘The populace, who understand little 
and care less about the subtle disputes and more subtle distinctions 
of the theologians and the philosophers, never abandoned faith 
in one or more powers, occult and irresistible, distinct and separate 
from the divine will, and variously designated, as the case might 
be, by the name of destiny, fortuna, or astrological influence.’’”9 
As a goddess, it is thus fair to assume, Fortuna was not peculiarly 
Roman except in name. Rome had developed a worship inde- 
pendent, in a sense, of foreign influence; so the Middle Ages 
created Fortuna in response to a particular human need or weak- 
ness, and only her name was borrowed. In the literary and 
artistic reflection of her cult, a great deal more was taken over. 
All the Roman tradition in literary substance and style, all the 
symbolic equipment that the Middle Ages cared for, was freely 
adopted.*° 


29 Graf, ΜΠ, Leggende ὁ Superstizioni, I, p. 276. 
80 In my next paper I hope to study the development in other fields of Medieval 
literature, beginning with the treatment in the Church Fathers. 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 


A—In explaining why Varro does not include Fortuna in his 
third class, that of diz selecti, Axtell, a student of the deification 
of abstractions in Rome, says: ‘‘Gods like Janus, Jupiter, .. . 
were more important because they had varied functions, were 
more personal, had certain semi-historical biographies preserved 
in literature, were not transparent in their names, and were 
considered by the common people as their great gods.’! But 
St. Augustine, a careful student of Varro, shows a realization of 
the power of Fortuna in Rome. As to the actual belief of the 
common people we shall probably never know most of the facts. 
And as to the transparency of the name, that means nothing 
unless we know that the goddess is already without power for 
other causes; the connotation of any word, abstraction or not, 
depends on the association of it in the Roman mind. That 
Fortuna has no ‘‘biography”’ is remarkable, but the dz indigetes 
had no biographies so far as we know.? How varied Fortuna’s 
functions were, has been discussed in the general study. How 
“personal” the goddess was is not a question of her power 
necessarily. Oftentimes too clear or too specific a conception may 
mean a weakness of conception which requires the support of 
detail. For me, a case in point is the vague and mystical deity 
of Dante in comparison with the clearer deity of Milton. 

Just what Axtell means by ‘‘personal’’ may be seen from 
another statement of his: “Elevated to the rank of divinity and 
provided with temples, flamens, priests, altars, and all the where- 
withall of a real cult, [the abstractions] are nevertheless practically 
mere qualities or states restricted to this, that, and the other, a 
nondescript and shadowy crowd that cannot be classified with 
the anthropomorphic gods nor the materialistic spirits of the 
Indigitamenta.”’ But he qualifies this by adding: “Nevertheless, 


1 Axtell, 73. 

2 Fortuna has legends telling of her dealings with mankind. See the stories of 
Galba, Numerius Suffustius, and, most of all, Servius Tullius, in Roscher, 1523; 
1544. 


170 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 171 


they serve a purpose and perform a function very similar, and 
indeed in some cases exactly equivalent, to a god whom the 
Romans worshiped in a highly personal way.’ 

Axtell’s chief example is the ode of Horace: ‘“‘When Horace 
(Carm. i. 35) invoked Fortuna ... how did he conceive of 
Necessitas, personified as highly as Fortuna and placed in her 
train with Spes and Fides, recognized deities? Was he not con- 
scious that Necessitas was not regarded as a goddess by the state 
or people? Did he not perceive the incongruity in placing a 
mere concept of the imagination in close relation with an actual 
deity, or did he really consider Necessitas divine? We cannot 
say. But for purposes of discrimination it is safer to assume, 
when known deities and otherwise unauthenticated deities are 
mentioned together in highly imaginative passages, that the 
former are lowered to rhetorical lay-figures rather than that the 
latter are exalted to actual celestial beings.’’* 

This argument, which obviously depends on an arbitrary 
interpretation of highly imaginative passages, does not seem to 
me cogent. In general, the juxtaposition of personifications and 
deities hardly implies a weakness in the conception of the latter. 
Aeschylus introduces symbolism. Milton makes Death the 
child of Sin and Satan, and puts the Graces in the Garden of 
Eden. As to the other deities, Spes and Fides, in the Horatian 
passage, Axtell has curiously overlooked the fact that the lines 
do not refer to separate deities at all. These figures simply 
represent the well-known cults of Fortuna. We have the Fortuna 
of horticulture: 

Te pauper ambit sollicita prece 
ruris colonus.§ 
Fortuna Redux: 
. . . Te dominam aequoris, 
quicumque Bithyna lacessit 
Carpathium pelagus carina.® 
Next the poem treats of the fear of Fortuna among the people. 


3 Axtell, 97. 

4 Axtell, 68. Cf. p. 146, n. 53 above. 

511, 5 ff. ‘Thee the poor country man courts with anxious prayer.” Trans. 
Wickham. 

611. 6 ff. “Thee queen of the ocean, whoever tempts in Bithynian bark the 
Carpathian sea.” Ibid. 


D2 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


She is not to be avoided—stern Necessity goes before her; but 
Hope and Faith never desert her. Thus we have the cults 
Fortuna Spes and Fides Fortuna:’ 


Te Spes et albo rara Fides colit 
velata panno.® 


It seems, on the whole, safer to consider that the goddess is 
more than a lay-figure, when we remember that she was already 
recognized as a deity with a strong cult at Antium (the one that 
engages Horace’s attention), another at Praeneste, and a good 
deal of priestly ‘‘wherewithall” in Rome. The poem shows no 
other signs of skepticism, no sneer that the size of the cult would 
almost certainly elicit. If the general popularity of the goddess 
inspired the author to write the poem, a feeling of the emptiness 
of the conception would surely appear. Axtell says elsewhere, 
“Only Fortuna, Victoria, and to a far less extent Salus, Felicitas, 
and Virtus, had personality in any appreciable degree.”* This, 
at least, grants something; but, in my opinion, not enough. 


B—There has often been reference to Caesar’s belief in his 
own particularly favorable Fortuna: “For [Caesar], like Sulla, 
with a robust confidence in his own good luck, was ever a believer 
in the ‘chapter of accidents’ deified under the name of Fortune.’’!? 
This is a conservative statement of a view, which has been popu- 
larly held, that Caesar believed Fortuna had a special regard for 
his destiny. Against this theory Fowler brings a vigorous attack." 
His method of refuting the idea is to show that Fortuna does not 
appear oftener in the pages of Caesar’s writings or more vividly 
than in those of many others of Caesar’s contemporaries. Yet it 
seems likely on the face of things that the Emperor did not 
actually oppose the faith in the goddess, especially when we 
remember the general interest of all the Caesars in Fortuna. 
Augustus seems to have questioned the oracle at Antium in 


7 Roscher, 1537-9 ff. and Plutarch (de Fort. Rom.) Τύχη Evedms. 

811. 21. ff. “Thee Hope waits on and Faith so rare, clad in white garments.” 
Ibid. Cf. D’Alton, p. 112, “[Horace] apparently caught up some of the ideas 
floating in the Roman world of his day.” 

9 Axtell, 98. 

10 Heitland, Roman Republic, iii, 336, §1260. 

τ The case with full statements of both sides is to be found in Fowler, ‘‘Caesar’s 
Conception of Fortune,” Classical Review, xvii (1903), p. 153. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 173 


26 Β. (. And she was considered the tutelary goddess of the 
emperors.!® In spite of his appealing argument, it is difficult for 
Professor Fowler actually to disprove the belief,4 and after all 
the Emperor is certainly not representative of the mass of Roman 
people. 


C—The original conceptions of the goddess may be summarized 
as follows: 


(1) Moon goddess, closely related to Isis: ‘So ist es mir 
nicht zweifelhaft, dass wir in ihr ebenso wie in der Nemesis 
wieder eine Mondg@éttin zu erkennen haben, die in ihren wech- 
selnden Phasen das Leben, wie das Geschick der Natur und 
des Menschen brachte, leitete und zugleich darstellte,” Gilbert, 
II, 389, ἢ. 3. See also Zoéga, Abhandlungen, pp. 37 ff; Curtius, 
Althertum u. Gegenwart, II, pp. 70-71. 


(2) The sun goddess, the giver of life: 
Gaidoz (1886), pp. 56 ff. Cf. Miiller on the etymology of the 
word Fortuna, with discussion in Fowler, Rom. Fest., pp. 164-6: 
“goddess of the dawn’’—Sanskrit HAER. See also, Dill, pp. 
617-18, who brings Fortuna from Assyria and Persia. 


(3) A Roman representative of Isis: 
Roscher, 1530 ff.; [1549 ff.; (Isidis=Isi tyches. Τύχη is therefore 
directly related. Cumont, p. 89.) Zoéga, Abhandlungen, pp. 37 ff. 
Cf. Dill’s summary of Isis, (pp. 564-572,) with Carter’s summary of 
Fortuna (Relig. Numa, p. 51). 


(4) A Roman representative of the Etruscan goddess Nortia, 
who is supposed to be related to the Germanic Norns. See Fowler, 
Rom. Fest., pp. 171 ff.; Peter (Roscher, 1549). In Etruscan 
Ferentinum a goddess was honored, says Peter, who was identi- 
fied with Salus or Fortuna; he quotes Tacitus, Aum. 15, 53. See 
also Fowler, Relig. Exper., p. 284; Axtell, p. 9; Wissowa, Real- 
Encyc., 16; Daremberg-Saglio, 1271 ff. An argument in favor 
of this view is that Servius Tullius, who is supposed to have 
introduced the cult to Rome, was probably an Etruscan. See 
Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 16-17. (Though Plutarch says Ancus 


? Roscher, 1548. See also Roscher, 1526, and Plutarch, de Fort. Rom., 6 1. 


8 Roscher, 1521 ff.; F. Augusta, 1524 ff. For a further statement regarding 
Caesar, see Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity, pp. 74 ff. 


14 See, 6. g., Caesar, Bello Gallico, VI, xxx; Bello Civili, III, Ixviii. 


174 TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 


Martius was the first,—de Fort. Rom. 5,—Peter suggests that this 
passage is an interpolation: Roscher 1508-9). 

(5) The Fortuna of horticulture: 

Wissowa, R. K., pp. 256 ff. He refers to the Fors Fortuna of 
Consul Sp. Carvilius, whose feast-day was at the end of the 
harvest. For an opposing view see Fowler, Relig. Exper., p. 245, 
note 30. Cf. Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity, p. 64; Axtell, p. 
9; Columella, de Cultu Hort., X, 311. 

(6) General discussion: 

Wissowa, R. K., p. 257, considers her also a goddess of women. 
See Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity, pp. 64 ff. Cf. F. Muliebris. 
Fowler, Relig. Exper., p. 235, says: ‘She was also very probably 
a deity of other kinds of fertility.” See Carter, Relig. Numa, 
p.51. An investigation of her cognomina leads Carter to the 
following opinion: “Summing up, we may say that functional 
cognomina are practically lacking in the case of Fortuna, and 
that her cognomina are employed principally to limit and thus 
emphasize her protecting activity in point of time, place, or 
person’; Carter, A. P. A. T., 1900, XXXT, p. 68. See alse 
Carter, De Deor. R. Cogn., p. 29. See in general, Fowler, Rom. 
Fest., pp. 166 ff. Gaidoz (p. 57) cites Wieseler, de Scala, as conject- 
uring that F. came from an Asiatic Venus. For F. as ‘“‘goddess 
of time” see Fowler Rom. Fest., 172. 

One need not restrict Fortuna to any one of these possible 
sources. Many influences may play on a conception. Fowler, 
Rom. Fest., p. 168, says in ridicule: ‘‘Fortuna has not only been 
conjectured to be a deity of the dawn; she has been made out to 
be both a moon goddess and a sun goddess.”” But why must we 
limit her even to these three? The cult near Etruria would be 
subject to Etruscan influence; the cult near a seaport, to the 
influence of Isis. See the discussion of the relation to the Mater 
Matuta (Roscher, 1511) because the temple in the forum boarium 
was next to that of the Mater Matuta and their feast days were 
the same. See Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 19-20; Gilbert, p. 390, and 
Na Ὁ. 


D—The cults of Fortuna at or before the time of the Empire 
include the following : 15 


5 See Roscher, 1508 ff.; Wissowa, Real-Encyc., 16 ff., who includes F. immo- 
derata in bono aeque atque in mala, 30; Carter, A. P. A. T., xxxi, pp. 63 ff. 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 175 


(1) Servius Tullius. 
(2) Fortuna Bona. 


(3) F. Obsequens. 

(4) F. Felix. 

(5) F. Respiciens. 
(6) F. Mala. 

(7) F. Manens. 

(8) F. Huiusce Diei. 
(9) F. Viscata. 

(10) F. Populi Romani. 
(11) F. Publica. 

(12) F. Publica Populi Romani Quiritium Primigenia.!” 
(13) F. Privata. 

(14) Ἐ. Virilis.: ΄ 
(15) F. Barbata. 
(16) F. Virgo. 

(17) F. Muliebris. 
(18) F. Mammosa. 
(19) F. Equestris. 
(20) F. Conservatrix. 
(21) F. Domestica. 
(22) F. Balnearis. 
(23) F. Salutaris. 
(24) F. Augusta. 
(25) F. Redux. 

(26) F. Dux. 


(27) Isis-Fortuna. 
(28) F.-Panthea.!8 


6 See also Τύχη ᾿Αποτρόπαιος mentioned by Plutarch, Roscher, 1513. 

17 The neighborhood of the three temples for this and the preceding two cults 
was called “‘Ad Tres Fortunas,” Wissowa R. K., p. 261. 

18 There were, of course, the individual cults of the families. And there were 
titles which are not to be taken as cult-names: F. Regina, Caelestis, Supera, Sancta, 
Magna, Casualis, Diva, etc. See Roscher, 1515. And one ought not to forget 
also the cults at Antium and Praeneste. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Aust, Emi; Die Religion der Rémer, Miinster i. W., 1899. 

AxTEL, Haroxp L.; The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and 
Inscriptions, Chicago, 1907. 

BAEHRENS, AEMILIUS; Poetae Latini Minores, Lipsiae, 1882. 

Bouquet; Recueil. See Orderic Vitalis. 

CanTER, H. V.; ‘Fortuna’ in Latin Poetry, [North Carolina] Studies in Philology, 
XIX, pp. 64 ff. 

CapELLA, Martianus; ed. F. Eyssenhardt, Lipsiae, 1866. 

CARMINA BuRANA, see Schmeller. 

CarTEeR, Jesse ΒΕΝΕΡΙΟΤ; American Philological Association Transactions, 
vol. XXXT, 1900. 

CarTER, J. B.; De Deorum Romanorum Cognominibus Quaestiones Selectae, 
Lipsiae, MDCCCXCVIII. 

CartTER, J. B.; The Religion of Numa and Other Essays on The Religion of Ancient 
Rome, London, 1906. 

Carter, J. B.; The Religious Life of Ancient Rome, Boston and New York, 1911. 

CumontT, FRANz; The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, authorized trans., 
Chicago, 1911. 

D’AtrTon, J. F.; Horace and his Age, London, 1917. 

DAREMBERG, CH., ET Epm. SAGLIo; Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et 
Romaines, 22, Paris, 1896. 

Dit, SAMUEL; Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, London, 1905. 

Dreves, Gumipo Marta; Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, vol. XXI, Leipzig, 1895. 

Diusner, F., ed., Anthologia Palatina, vol. II, Paris, 1872. 

Exicu; Vitae, Lib. II, 165, Passiones Vitaeque Sanctorum Aevi Merovingici, 
Bruno Krusch, Hannoverae et Lipsiae, 1902, (Monumenta Germaniae His- 
torica, Scriptorum Rerum Merovingicarum, vol. IV.) 

Forster, Max; Sphaeren Apulei und Gliicksrad, Herrig’s Archiv fiir das 
Studium der neuren Sprachen, vol. CX XIX, pp. 45-49. 

Fowter, W. W.; Caesar’s Conception of Fortune, The Classical Review, vol. 
XVII (1903), p. 153. 

Fow.er, W. W.; The Religious Experience of the Roman People, London, 
1911, Gifford Lectures, Edinburgh, 1910-11. 

Fow er, W. W.; The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic, London, 1899. 

Fow ter, W. W.; Roman Ideas of Deity, London, 1914. 

Fow er, W. W., see Hastings. 

Gatpoz, Henrt; Etudes de Mythologie Gauloise, I. Le Dieu Gaulois du Soleil et le 
Symbolisme de la Roue, Paris, 1886. 

GEDICHT AUF DIE ZERSTORUNG Martanps, Neues Archiv, der Gesellschaft fiir 
altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XI, 1886, pp. 466 ff. 


176 


TRADITION OF THE GODDESS FORTUNA 17. 


GEOFFREY DE VINSAUF; Noeva Poetria, see Leyser, Hist. Poetarum, etc., pp. 861- 
978. 

GESTA DI FEDERICO J IN JTati1A, Ernesto Monaci, Roma, 1887. 

GILBERT, Dr. Orro; Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum, 
Leipzig, 1885. 

Grar, Arturo; ΜΗ, Leggende e Superstizioni del Medio Evo, Torino, 1892. 

GUILEVILLE, GUILLAUME DE; Le Rommant des Trois Pelerinaiges, ed. 1511 (1484?). 

Hartune, J. A.; Religion der Romer, 1836. 

HAstinocs, J.; Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VI, Fortuna, New York, 
1914. 

HEITLAND, W. E.; The Roman Republic, Cambridge, 1909. 

Hotcot, Rosertus; Super libros sapientie, Reutlingen, Otmar, 1489. 

Jaun, O.; Uber den Aberglauben des Bésen Blicks, Berichte iiber die Verhandlun- 
gen der Konigl. Sachs. gesellsch. etc., Phil.-hist. cl., 1855, VIT, 28-110. 

JoRDAN, H.; Symbolae ad histor. relig. Italic., Konigsberg, 1883. 

LEMAIRE, N. E., ed.; Poetae Latini Minores, vol. IJ, Paris, 1824. 

LEYSER, PoLycarP; Historia Poetarum et Poematum Medii Aevi, Halae Magdeb., 
1721: 

LYDGATE AND ΒΌΚΟΗ 5 Secrees of old Philosoffres, ed. Robert Steele, London, 1894, 
18g 105 Ae SOB 5 ID AVAle 

Mapes, GuALTERI; De Nugis Curialium, ed. Thomas Wright, Camden Society, 
1850. 

MippiretTon, H. J.; The Remains of Ancient Rome, London and Edinburgh, 1892. 

MicneE; Patrologiae Cursus Completus, (Latinae). 

Momsen, THEoporR; The History of Rome, New York, 1905. 

Novatt, F., Carmina Medii Aevi, Libr. Dante in Firenze, 1883. 

OrverIC ViITALIS, (Histor. Eccles.) Martin Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens, XII, 
723 C-D, Paris, 1877. 

PAuLy-WissowA, Real-Encyclopiidie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft; Neue 
Bearbeitung Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Stuttgart, 1910. F'atum, vol. 12, 
col. 2047; Fortuna, vol. xiii, col. 12. 

PRELLER, Lupwic; Rémische Mythologie, Dritte Auflage von H. Jordan, Berlin, 
1881. 

RAYMUND OF PENNAFORTE; Summula Raymundi, Cologne, 1502. 

Roscuer, W. H., Ausfiihrliches Lexicon der Griekischen und Romanischen Myth- 
ologie, 15, Leipzig, 1886-1890. 

SCHMELLER, J. A., ed., Carmina Burana einer Hs. des XIII Jahrh., Breslau, 1°04. 

VINCENTIUS BELLOVACENSIS, Speculum Historiale, Venice, 1494. 

WERNER, JAK.; Beitraige zur Kunde der lateinischen Literatur, etc., second ed., 
Aarau, 1905. 

Wissowa; Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyclopidie. See under Pauly. 

Wissowa, Dr. GeEorG; Religion und Kultus der Romer, Miinchen, 1912. 

Wricut, THomas; The Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets and Epigrammatists of the 
Twelfth Century, two volumes, London, 1872. 


Mee yy i. a mG Pua A) Harte 
τ a Me a Ἢ 


i 
te 


" 


ἡ ἤν a ᾿ 
a Ὁ a Re 


ἢ ἢ ἬΝ 


ΜΠ [ ' Bay i Nt i ye ae a a Ν᾿ ͵ 
νὰ, τᾷ ᾿ ve ΓΝ eas My a 

co a i ᾿ a 
i ἍΝ. 


ἽΝ ; 

‘ea be Sie 

ti ht aan 
i ἌΝ ἬΝ, 


— 


ie era Me 


ae 


re γε ee 
Pe ah, (Ὁ 
7 Ὑ wie 

᾿ Nabe, 


ies Ὧν Γ᾿ ἤν 


ἣν ΠΝ 

πο πῇ f hy an mi We 

; wi ἢ v8 Lh ay eee 

᾿ δ AM Me ᾿ ” fe: re "ἢ ti " 

ΤΥ ΠῚ 7 are ΠῚ Y,, mit ‘ ᾿ τ ae i 
ἐπ " ἵν ᾿ ἣν foe ἢ, 

A . ὝΨΗ ΓΙ, 

real δ᾽ a ee Bm ἢ 

an rs 


mi ie Re ΤΩΝ a 
a ew “ἢ “ἡ ἊΝ " 


ae 


ΣΝ ae " thy ἮΝ ta "" " “ἢ : a a » i " ΓΝ ΤΕ ᾿ ᾿ 
he baa ue att ᾿ ΤΗΝ ri Ι a ue at ἘΣ a Heb one (a 
alt "Ἢ bain “Bay ey: na an oe 

"" Γ a : it δι We 


fe “a 


a 
τοι =P 


fae ; ΜΗ bat he 
| i 


a 
᾿ νὰ Εν, fe CRG 
rir ν 


a δ" ἃ 
ΜΠ hi 
rian ie 


ran ᾿ ἯΙ Ἵ ᾿ 


"ἰῷ 


7 ἢ 
a i iP 7 
‘ 


‘ νι ν 
eke 
; rN ae a 
ΠΥ it ns ἢ i a 


" Tih a ne Fei 
ea: iy dean ae) 
“3 ᾿ ὯΔ rs 

et oe 
ἮΝ iv ea, 1 ey am dade 
: my bits μι ee) ae 
ἵ 4 


n vent ; Ἢ iD net : . Ὶ At if i 
i i 
| bs ? ee ni a a ᾿ i ᾿ uy Ἵ ie 
Pee Sr Ln Cor SI Ν ἣν ἣν aa 
ὭΣ em a 


aa bin Cane a ne Nee 
| 7 Rost Ga 


ἌΡΗΝ ταν 
ἀν, ao 


rea Vig Ἵ 
ἔπ Ι i τ 
oe 
{ο 


2) aa i 
" " 
ΠῚ 


a , 


a 
a Τ᾿ 
Soa ‘1M 


in 
i 


δ ae ᾿ " ae ᾿ ἢ ἢ" 
Ὁ" ΣΝ hi ier OM ee i 
᾿ Aas ᾿ Ἶ, ἢν ἰὼ 


AM 


i ἮΝ ἡ ἣν 


ἊΝ 


fl Wb " 


7 DU Pee en ee, hy PPL. | 
ei, ἰὴ ee a ve 


᾿ 
δ: on ae 


᾿ bee, τὶ : 
ee Ot aa se ” 
oa a A ae > 


᾿ 
Se eer 
᾿ ΝΣ ἣν ΠΝ ᾿ 
» 7 1 a 7 ΩΣ “uw ar a 
' i ih on 


7 
y 
4 i re Led 
᾿ Ν τῶν 
᾿ 


τ SUR i 


νι 


ἕω ᾿ a 


rie ; } 
νὴ 
᾿ ΟΝ re ὦ ἤν 


π᾿ 
ἘΝ ἵ 


ΠῚ ‘i Be ve 


we na 
mally oh lige ne 


hee) _ 
0 ἥν ἐν 


Ἔνι ee in ᾿ς ΝΥ 
He met 
1 ba - au 


ον" ᾿ 7 aay Sr θθπΦΔοΠΕ...-.-.. 
; μ᾿ ᾿ y can) - οἱ nt ἢ { ᾿ς " “ΠῚ Σινα, " 7 
a " “" ᾿ ῃ δὰ ᾿ ᾿ Ϊ ἰ : a " ac 
ry eT) ΤῊ . . oH 
, eee . ΩΝ τὰν. vi 
i ae a 7 ἰ ᾿ Ἰ 4 ᾿ : ' ᾿ ᾿ 
᾿ ᾿ ἐὰν HI i ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 14 Ἂν ᾿ τὰ ! Ty Fi f, a a" Ὁ 
᾿ ΠΗ ¢ 7 4 ᾿ ¥ ᾿ ΣΝ t ἂν ᾿ ; 
ἢ) i > i ᾿ f ΕΣ ἢ Ἷ i i 
ee ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ΟΠ ΞΈΝΕ ᾿ “ it 
Ν in C " " ᾿ ' ’ : 7 ' re ᾿ ' ; 
᾿ ig Ar | e 7 " “ 7 ah i ‘ ᾿ ' 
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ f 7 ’ ” De τ 7 ᾿ 
᾿ 1.4 ᾿ : ᾿ Ε ᾿ ᾿ ΝΙΝ ᾿ ον iz 
Ae i < Re 
7 ᾿ a Ἷ ¥ 4 5, Π ; Te 
͵ ᾽ ᾿ ᾿ 
Ae i a: ; ὟΣ " ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
ΒΗ ᾿ ᾿ δ εὖ ; a ᾿ oe 
᾿ ’ a : 
_ τ ' ie ᾿ 
7 ’ i a 
~ be 
/ ᾿ ῃ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ Ϊ τ a " 
᾿ a or ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
᾿ | i ᾿ - ΠῚ ; 
ὲ } ᾿ ' ᾿ ᾿ χ 7 f ‘ a 
Ἵ ᾿ ᾿ ih th ‘1 ᾿ _ ᾿ "| 
Ἷ. ᾿ ΓΝ ἵ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ; j ᾿ 
7 Ἢ ᾿ ’ ᾿ Ι 5 
- Ἢ ᾿ Ἵ 1 "Ὶ ᾿ ἡ 
De i ' 14 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ; ; 
ΙΝ “ἡ ΠΥ 
; ᾿ yn wt ᾿ ι ᾿ 
7 ᾿ ᾿ τ τὰ 
i ἱ ἘΝ ra ' ᾿ 
i 7 >. 7 a : 
Ἵ ο ἢ “ΠῚ | ῃ 
ῃ ra ’ ἢ ᾿ Ἷ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
; i i On 
᾿ a 7 = 
i} 
" ᾿ ; ᾿ 
. a ᾿ 7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
ai : i ᾿ 
᾿ς i = ἢ ᾿ > . 
> ( ΠΥ ΑἹ 
᾿ ; " τ an 
iy Ai ] 
Ι ᾿ 
ἱ : = " ᾿ ; 


; ᾿ 
. a) | 
᾿ ᾿ ἜΝ ᾽ 
if) ᾿ ἢ 1 
a - a) 
‘Go ᾿ 
7 i 
_ ΠῚ ᾿ ; ᾿ 
᾿ 
! ᾿ Ὁ Ι ε 
7 ᾿ 2 
os 
ὶ ᾿ ᾿ 
᾿ yy σου = 
i ae 
oo i ᾿ ᾿ 7 
᾿ : ; | 
= is] 
᾿ 
1 + 
i} " ᾿ ohh ; 
Dine ; ; ᾿ ᾿ 
. " i Ι ᾿ 
Uy 
1 
. J _ ᾿ ᾿ 
ἐν ΝΥ 41 ᾿ 
τῇ ᾿ ᾿ Π ᾿ 
’ ι Ἷ 
; ᾿" ᾿ ᾿ i G ᾿ ᾿ 7 
a i) ; Π Β: >| 
en 
> i λ ᾿ . ἢ Ἢ ie i ᾿ 
1 it. in 1 ΠῚ 


DATE DUE 


TIT 
CTL 


τὸ 
CH 


JUNe4 


Ἢ 


ie] 
4 
ο 
a 
> 
< 
° 
{ 


tT 


Il 


Hill 


1 1012 00162 6094 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


The tradition of the goddess Fortuna in 


BL820 .F7P2 


ers he ew ey rere ty 
ρώύφευ Ἐσὺ γον tr ὧν Or rete 
νας κυρῶ σιμόν Wr νυν ee ναι 


Hate view Deter irs 
pee νειν erieer er vr ert i] 


rey yr ee 


γον αν ut 
Mah Whee νον 
μυγὐκυν ἀν τ υν Sees 


